PENNSYLVANIA CONSOLIDATED STATUTES CRIMES AND OFFENSES (TITLE 18) PART II. DEFINITION OF SPECIFIC OFFENSES. CHAPTER 31. SEXUAL OFFENSES Subchapter A. General Provisions Section 3101. Definitions Section 3102. Mistake as to age Section 3104. Evidence of victim's sexual conduct Section 3105. Prompt complaint Section 3106. Testimony of complainants Section 3107. Resistance not required Subchapter B. Definition Of Offenses Section 3121. Rape Section 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault Section 3123. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse Section 3124.1. Sexual assault Section 3124.2. Institutional sexual assault Section 3125. Aggravated indecent assault Section 3126. Indecent assault Offense Section Grade § 3121 Rape Felony 1 § 3122.1 Statutory Sexual Assault Felony 2 § 3123 Involuntary Deviant Sexual Intercourse Felony 1 § 3124.1 Sexual Assault Felony 2 § 3124.2 Institutional Sexual Assault Felony 2 § 3125 Aggravated Indecent Assault Misdemeanor 1 § 3126 Indecent Assault Felony 2 § 3101. Definitions Subject to additional definitions contained in subsequent provisions of this chapter which are applicable to specific provisions of this chapter, the following words and phrases when used in this chapter shall have, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, the meanings given to them in this section: "Complainant." An alleged victim of a crime under this chapter. "Deviate sexual intercourse." Sexual intercourse per os or per anus between human beings and any form of sexual intercourse with an animal. The term also includes penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of another person with a foreign object for any purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement procedures. "Forcible compulsion." Compulsion by use of physical, intellectual, moral, emotional or psychological force, either express or implied. The term includes, but is not limited to, compulsion resulting in another person's death, whether the death occurred before, during or after sexual intercourse. "Foreign object." Includes any physical object not a part of the actor's body. "Indecent contact." Any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of the person for the purpose of arousing or gratifying sexual desire, in either person. "Sexual intercourse." In addition to its ordinary meaning, includes intercourse per os or per anus, with some penetration however slight; emission is not required. § 3102. Mistake as to age Except as otherwise provided, whenever in this chapter the criminality of conduct depends on a child being below the age of 14 years, it is no defense that the defendant did not know the age of the child or reasonably believed the child to be the age of 14 years or older. When criminality depends on the child's being below a critical age older than 14 years, it is a defense for the defendant to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that he or she reasonably believed the child to be above the critical age. § 3104. Evidence of victim's sexual conduct (a) General rule.--Evidence of specific instances of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, opinion evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct, and reputation evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct shall not be admissible in prosecutions under this chapter except evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct with the defendant where consent of the alleged victim is at issue and such evidence is otherwise admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence. (b) Evidentiary proceedings.--A defendant who proposes to offer evidence of the alleged victim's past sexual conduct pursuant to subsection (a) shall file a written motion and offer of proof at the time of trial. If, at the time of trial, the court determines that the motion and offer of proof are sufficient on their faces, the court shall order an in camera hearing and shall make findings on the record as to the relevance and admissibility of the proposed evidence pursuant to the standards set forth in subsection (a). § 3105. Prompt complaint Prompt reporting to public authority is not required in a prosecution under this chapter: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a defendant from introducing evidence of the complainant's failure to promptly report the crime if such evidence would be admissible pursuant to the rules of evidence. § 3106. Testimony of complainants The credibility of a complainant of an offense under this chapter shall be determined by the same standard as is the credibility of a complainant of any other crime. The testimony of a complainant need not be corroborated in prosecutions under this chapter. No instructions shall be given cautioning the jury to view the complainant's testimony in any other way than that in which all complainants' testimony is viewed. § 3107. Resistance not required The alleged victim need not resist the actor in prosecutions under this chapter: Provided, however, That nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a defendant from introducing evidence that the alleged victim consented to the conduct in question. § 3121. Rape (a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or she engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant: 1. By forcible compulsion. 2. By threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution. 3. Who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring. 4. Where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance. 5. Who suffers from a mental disability which renders the complainant incapable of consent. 6. Who is less than 13 years of age. (b) Additional penalties.--In addition to the penalty provided for by subsection (a), a person may be sentenced to an additional term not to exceed ten years' confinement and an additional amount not to exceed $100,000 where the person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant and has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, any substance for the purpose of preventing resistance through the inducement of euphoria, memory loss and any other effect of this substance. § 3122.1. Statutory sexual assault Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse with a complainant under the age of 16 years and that person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other. § 3123. Involuntary deviate sexual intercourse (a) Offense defined.--A person commits a felony of the first degree when he or she engages in deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant: 1. by forcible compulsion; 2. by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution; 3. who is unconscious or where the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the sexual intercourse is occurring; 4. where the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; 5. who suffers from a mental disability which renders him or her incapable of consent; 6. who is less than 13 years of age; or 7. who is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and person are not married to each other. (b) Definition.--As used in this section, the term "forcible compulsion" includes, but is not limited to, compulsion resulting in another person's death, whether the death occurred before, during or after the sexual intercourse. § 3124.1. Sexual assault Except as provided in section 3121 (relating to rape) or 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), a person commits a felony of the second degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual intercourse with a complainant without the complainant's consent. § 3124.2. Institutional sexual assault (a) General rule. Except as provided in sections 3121 (relating to rape), 3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse), 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault) and 3125 (relating to aggravated indecent assault), a person who is an employee or agent of the Department of Corrections or a county correctional authority, youth development center, youth forestry camp, State or county juvenile detention facility, other licensed residential facility serving children and youth, or mental health or mental retardation facility or institution commits a felony of the third degree when that person engages in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual intercourse or indecent contact with an inmate, detainee, patient or resident. (b) Definition.-As used in this section, the term "agent" means a person who is assigned to work in a State or county correctional or juvenile detention facility, a youth development center, youth forestry camp, other licensed residential facility serving children and youth, or mental health or mental retardation facility or institution who is employed by any State or county agency or any person employed by an entity providing contract services to the agency. § 3125. Aggravated indecent assault Except as provided in sections 3121 (relating to rape), 3122.1 (relating to statutory sexual assault), 3123 (relating to involuntary deviate sexual intercourse) and 3124.1 (relating to sexual assault), a person who engages in penetration, however slight, of the genitals or anus of a complainant with a part of the person's body for any purpose other than good faith medical, hygienic or law enforcement procedures commits aggravated indecent assault, a felony of the second degree, if: 1. the person does so without the complainant's consent; 2. the person does so by forcible compulsion; 3. the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution; 4. the complainant is unconscious or the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the penetration is occurring; 5. the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; 6. the complainant suffers from a mental disability which renders him or her incapable of consent; 7. the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or 8. the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other. § 3126. Indecent assault (a) Offense defined.--A person who has indecent contact with the complainant or causes the complainant to have indecent contact with the person is guilty of indecent assault if: 1. the person does so without the complainant's consent; 2. the person does so by forcible compulsion; 3. the person does so by threat of forcible compulsion that would prevent resistance by a person of reasonable resolution; 4. the complainant is unconscious or the person knows that the complainant is unaware that the indecent contact is occurring; 5. the person has substantially impaired the complainant's power to appraise or control his or her conduct by administering or employing, without the knowledge of the complainant, drugs, intoxicants or other means for the purpose of preventing resistance; 6. the complainant suffers from a mental disability which renders him or her incapable of consent; 7. the complainant is less than 13 years of age; or 8. the complainant is less than 16 years of age and the person is four or more years older than the complainant and the complainant and the person are not married to each other. (b) Grading.--Indecent assault under subsection (a)(7) is a misdemeanor of the first degree. Otherwise, indecent assault is a misdemeanor of the second degree. http://www.thenation.com/print/article/oversexed , Oversexed Nation. Published on The Nation (http://www.thenation.com) Oversexed Debbie Nathan IALJ3.1St 11,2005 A young Kenyan woman named Alice B. is classified by the US government as a victim of human trafficking, but you've probably never heard of her case, because the work she was forced to do didn't involve turning tricks. Alice, who did not want to use her last name for fear of retaliation, took a childcare job a few years ago that required her to move from Africa to the Bay Area. She agreed to work regular hours for about $200 a week But when she got to California, her boss--a prominent Kenyan woman journalist--confiscated Alice's visa and made her baby-sit day and night for as little as $50 a month. Alice fled after several months and notified authorities. Eventually she got legal residency under a federal law known as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act (TVPA). The law, she says, has helped her put her life back together. First passed in late 2000, the TVPA slaps penalties onto those who move people across borders and force them to work against their will It also offers assistance, including permission to settle in the United States, to immigrant victims like Alice. On paper the law looks good. But in practice it hasn't helped many people so far, and it's hurt others, while placing undue emphasis on commercial sex work and downplaying the plight of victims in other jobs, like Alice. Probably because she was "just" an imprisoned nanny and not a brothel captive, the Feds declined to criminally prosecute her boss, and they hardly publicized her case. That's often what happens with peopJe forced to work in factories, fields, restaurants and homes--and there are plenty of them in the United States. Meanwhile, government press releases and the news are rife with accounts of "sex slaves" --even though the limited evidence that exists suggests sex work is not the most common type of forced labor, and even though most immigrants who work as prostitutes do so voluntarily. Officially, TVPA enforcers count "voluntary" prostitutes as victims of trafficking and go out looking for them. But once found, these so-called victims are often deported According to Dawn Passar, a Thai immigrant who has worked for years doing AIDS prevention with San Francisco-area prostitutes, "I've never met a Thai woman smuggled in for sex work who didn't know that's what she'd be coming here to do." But the women often get snared in massage parlor raids and are slated for removal from the country. "It costs $40,000 to get legal help," says Passar. "To pay, they have to do even more sex work" The TVPA is also policing the speech of labor- and women's-rights groups, and sanctioning countries--like Cuba and Venezuela--whose politics the US government doesn't like. The law's split personality derives from the fact that a split group created it. On one side were evangelical Christians, with their typical fears of foreigners, leftists and sex--and their morbid fascination with forced prostitution, even though more people may be forced to pick broccoli than to rent out their genitals. Then there were feminists whose concern about the exploitation of women--like the evangelicals'-also l of6 7/13/2012 5:38AM Oversexed http://www.thenation.com/printlarticle/oversexed fixated on connnercial sex. The evangelicals and feminists seized the lobbying reins by making common cause around what both call "sex slavery." For evangelicals the deal was a bargain. For feminists it's turned Faustian. Meanwhile, the pact between these two groups remains under most progressives' radar. It seems too weird to imagine. Gloria Steinem working with the likes of Chuck Colson? It makes sense if one looks at history, going back about a decade. That's when US antiporn feminists gave up trying to ban sexual imagery and shifted their enetgies to prostitution. Former anti-porn activist Laura Lederer, for example, helped develop an "abolitionist" movement that aims to ban all commercial sex acts, involuntary and voluntary--even if prostitutes themselves protest the prohibition. There's no such thing as consent, as far as abolitionist oJDUUzations, like the Coalition Against Trafficking in Women, are concerned. For them, everyone who crosses borders to work in prostitution is a "trafficking" victim. Other feminists-particularly those who work with immigrants and women in developing countries-disagree. Activist theorists like Ann Snitow and Carole Vance view prostitution as just one of many onerous and often sexist jobs available to poor women who migrate to support their families. They reject the idea of singling it out for opprobriwn if it's done voluntarily, by adults. Wary of law-and-order solutions to structwal economic and social problems, these feminists talk about "sex work" and encourage members of the trade to unionize. Organizing in countries like India, they note, has educated voluntary prostitutes to identifY captives in the brothels and help liberate them. That approach combats trafficking better than does relying on often corrupt, macho police. Even do-gooder raids frequently end with "victims" being deported--or fleeing their "rescuers" and returning to the brothels. Organizing also helps sex wo:rters protect themselves from sexually transmitted disease, violence and exploitation by pimps. Organizing would be much easier if prostitution were decriminalized, proponents of this approach believe. It would promote gender and socioeconomic equality--making it easier for sex workers to leave the trade if they wish to. During the 1990s feminists from the abolitionist and the sex-work camps engaged in spirited debate about prostitution and the defmition of trafficking, at gatherings such as the UN Fourth World Conference on Women, in Beijing in 1995. But soon the discussion was pre-empted by another, monolithic voice: that of the evangelicals. In 1998, under the tutelage of Michael Horowitz, of the neocon think tank the Hudson Institute, leaders like Watergate feJon Colson--who found Jesus while in prison--and Richard Land, head of the ethics and religious liberty commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, lobbied successfully for the Religious Freedom Act, which makes "promoting religious freedom" a "core objective of U.S. foreign policy," according to the State Department The act earned evangelicals a State Department office and an at-large ambassadorship. It justified funding for "faith-based" groups to monitor religious persecution abroad. It gave evangelicals clout in decisions to sanction nations deemed out of compliance. And it established the US Christian right as a player in the international human-rights field. While pushing the Religious Freedom Act, Colson, Land and their allies gained a certain ecumenical cachet by working with other constituencies, such as Jewish rabbis and politicians who were troubled by persecution. With their newfound respectability, the evangelicals proceeded to the trafficking issue and linked up with abolitionist feminists. The two groups garnered support from conservative New Jer~ Congressman Christopher Smith. An evangelical and arch-foe of Roe v. Wade, Smith is co-chair of the House's "Pro-Life Caucus" and has written a spate of legislation banning US financial backing for family-planning clinics in the Third World that offer abortions. But just as feminists joined moral conservatives on the Meese Commission to get porn outlawed in the 1980s, they were willing to wheel and deal with people like Smith around the trafficking issue. ~ of6 7/13/2012 5:38AM Oversexed http://www .thenati on.cornlprint/articleloversexed By the late 1990s the media were fuiJ of stories about the globalizing push to move people around the world for forced and child labor. Little boys toiling on cocoa bean plantations in Cameroon, Mexican deafmutes made to sell tchotchkes on the streets ofNew York--clearly, many trafficking victims were not employed in brothels. But Representative Smith drafted a bill that limited the defmition of trafficking to work involving sex--whether coerced or not--and eliminated from consideration all victims except women and children. Labor-rights-oriented groups objected, and the late Senator Paul Wellstone wrote most of the TVPA's fmal wording. It outlaws all forced work-not just prostitution, and not just labor done by women and children. For tbe TVPA coercion is required in order to prosecute perpetrators and help victims. But abolitionist feminists and evangelicals retained language that labels as "trafficking" all smuggling of immigrants into prostitution--even if they knew what line of work they'd be getting into and are doing it voluntarily, and even though immigrants working voluntarily as prostitutes probably far outnumber those who are coerced, both internationally and in this country, according to researchers such as University of West Indies sociologist Kemala Kempadoo, who studies migration and sex work. In a slick rhetorical maneuver, the TVPA offers no assistance to individuals who've been voluntarily smuggled to work as prostitutes, yet it counts them as "trafficking" victims, along with brothel prisoners. The conflation inflates the severity of the "sex slave" problem in the public mind. The TVPA is now almost five years old It created a "Trafficking in Persons" office in the State Department and employs yet another at-large ambassador--currently John Miller, a former Republican congressman fium Washington State. 'The Bush Administration has earmarked about $150 million to enforce the law and help victims. Much of the money has gone to NGOs with long experience in assisting immigrants suffering from problems such as domestic violence and labor exploitation. But funding is also being snapped up by "faith-based" groups who've never before done this kind of work. Many, like Beverly LaHaye's Concerned Women for America, are obsessed with rescuing prostitutes from moral turpitude. For them, corrnnercial sex is far worse than other exploitative work poor people do--forced or not. The government encourages the fixation. The TVPA's preamble, written in 2000, estimated that each year the United States was receiving 50,000 trafficked people. All were assumed to be women and children--by far the likeliest groups to be pressed into prostitution. Not until2003, when the TVPA was amended (and tbe 50,000 annual victim figure slashed to at most 20,000), did the State Department include men in its estimate. Forced prostitution clearly does exist in the United States. In one notorious case, five Mexicans-including three women-pleaded guilty to recruiting teen girls in Mexico with promises of good jobs across the border, imprisoning four of them in a house in Plainfield, New Jersey, and making them have sex six days a week with paying customers. A similar scenario in New York City led to guilty pleas in April by a family of pimps. These cases cou1d be the tip of an iceberg. Or they could be rare. No one knows. Even the State Department's revised 20,000 figure remains "very suspect" as being too high, says David Feingold, an anthropologist who's in charge of anti-trafficking projects for UNESCO. Estimates aside, very few people in this country are coming to the authorities to complain they've been trafficked. The dearth is reflected in figures for the T visa, the one Alice B. got that allowed her to stay in the country after she ran away from bernanny job in Palo Aho. Each year since 2001, the government has set aside 5,000 of these for trafficking victims. Thus, the authorities by now could have counted more than 20,000 victims. Yet according to the Department of Homeland Security's Citizen and Immigration Services Division, only 1,084 people have filed forT visas. Most applicants reported being forced into labor such as construction, welding and domestic work. These figures suggest that the nation harbors more enslaved 3 of6 7/13/2012 5:38AM Oversexed http://www.thenation.cornlprim.farticleloversexed dtywallers and baby-sitters than it does brothel prisoners. Still, the media favor sex-trafficking stories over accounts of other forced work. Television and the press are full of titillating reports, often with suggestive visuals (a New York Times Magazine cover piece featured a photo of a teenaged victim posed in a Catholic-style schoolgirl uniform--sitting on a bed). Despite the likelihood that the coverage is skewed, researchers such as Kevin Bales, of the NGO Free the Slaves, have tallied press clippings to argue that prostitution predominates over other types of labor trafficking. The State Department makes the same claim by citing the Bales study. The International Labor Organi2ation used similarly shaky methodology to arrive at its claim, published earlier this year, that most immigrants trafficked to industrialized countries are brought for sex work. But that's not what people who work with forced labor victims are fmding. "Only one-third of my cases are about sex trafficking," says Suzanne Tornatore, an attorney who heads the Immigrant Women and Children Project of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Tornatore says that the "vast majority" of her clients were trafficked into domestic work, including immigrants brought to work for UN and consular officials. The typical employee "gets paid $50 a month or not at all. They're working seventeen, eighteen hours a day, catering parties, washing laundry by hand even though there's a washing machine. They've had their documents withheld and their phone calls monitored." It's the same story in the Washington, DC, area, according to Layli Miller-Muro, director of the suburban VIrginia-based MHnen's human rights group the Tahirih Justice Center--except that many traffickers there are World Bank employees. In Los Angeles, the Coalition to Abolish Slavery and Trafficking (CAST) also deals mainly with victims who've had nothing to do with prostitution. "Besides bondage in households, we're seeing an increase in people of both sexes trafficked into restaurants and construction," says CAST director Kay Buck. "And factories--often victims are forced not just to work but to sleep in them" Though the NGOs refer many of these people to the Feds, they seem to get a lot less government PR than do victims who can be portrayed as sex slaves. The Department of Justice publishes a newsletter with colorful bar graphs illustrating its prosecution statistics. The blue bars, for "Sex Trafficking," are much higher than the red ones, for "Labor Trafficking"--implyingthat the vast majority ofDOJ cases under the TVPA are about prostitution. The DOJ won't release comprehensive narratives of each case, but details scattered in departmental press releases and newsletters reveal that many involve women and girls trapped in domestic or restaurant work who were molested or raped by a male employer or by men in his family. 1he main work these victims did was as cooks, waitresses and housekeepers. The sexual assaults did not involve money. Still, the government apparently is classifying these scenarios as sex trafficking. Service providers stress that coerced sex brutalizes victims, and they're glad the government and the media are concerned. But they wonder why other workers' suffering gets so much less attention. The terror evoked by imprisonment in a sweatshop, says CASTs Buck, "is just as severe as it is for a person who's sex trafficked." What's more, most people who've been trafficked are in the country without immigration papers. Indeed, they went into bondage to begin with because enforcement of this country's borders is getting more and more strict. Tightening borders ups the price of being smuggled, according to UN researcher Susan Forbes Martin. Smugglers often import their clients on credit, selling the debt to restaurant, sweatshop and brothel owners; debtor immigrants then work off the money they owe. Even when voluntary, this debt-bondage arrangement is illegal, like just about everything else in undocumented immigrants' lives. lhey're so used to being underground that "they're more terrified of the government than of traffickers," says attorney Juhu Thukral, director of the New York City-based Sex Workers Project of the Urban Justice Institute. 4 of6 7/13/2012 5:38AM Oversexed http://www .thenati on.cornlprintfarticle/oversexed As part of its work with prostitutes, the Sex Workers Project assists trafficking victims. But "when we say, 'You have to sit down with FBI agents,'" Thukral says, "suddenly the trafficking situation they escaped from doesn't seem so bad." Or at least not bad enough to apply for TVPA assistance--even when the forced labor involves prostitution. Immigrants "may say, 'What do I need a green card for? I can get a job in a restaurant without it. I just want to make some money for my family, then go home."' Three out of four ofThukral's clients refuse to talk to the government. Other service providers cite similar ratios. Trafficking victims who do cooperate can get aT visa even if the government decides it's too much trouble to prosecute their case (this is what happened to Alice B.). But cooperation is often a carrot-and-stick deal: In return for visas, victims help curtail other people's ability to immigrate without papers. Mie Lewis, an attorney who worked until recently with the Bay Area Anti-Trafficking Task Force, recaUs that her clients who met with prosecutors "would be grilled about the circumstances of their entry into this country." Immigration agents "used them as sources of information about boles in the border, asking, 'Where, exactly, did you cross out of Canada? Where did you get your [fake] documents?'" As University of Southern Maine sociologist and women's studies professor Wendy Chapkis says, the TVPA "serves as a soft glove covering a still punishing fist" of US immigration policy. The law contains yet another stick. Under the TVPA the US government can yank nonhumanitarian foreign aid from nations that, in its estimation, aren't hard enough on trafficking. Currently twelve countries are on this list, including Cuba, North Korea and \enezuela. Meanwhile, the State Department does not evaluate the United States' anti-trafficking work--though the Justice Department prosecuted only thirty-two trafficking cases from the time the TVPA was instituted until late last year. And "sex trafficking" has created another foreign and domestic policy knout. The government has lately begun to argue that legal sex work causes sex trafficking. It backs up this claim with dubious data-including from Rhode Island University women's studies professor Donna Hughes, an outspoken advocate of morally conservative policies on trafficking who is getting research money from the State Department. Thus, a revision last year to the TVPA (and an additional law enacted this year for groups working to prevent AIDS--see Esther Kaplan, "Just Say Niio," May 30), allows the government to refuse money to NGOs that "promote, support, or advocate the legalization or practice of prostitution" The result: Groups that combat trafficking and IDV infection by helping organize prostitutes, groups that believe prostitution should be decriminalized, groups with no position one way or another on legalization--all now risk losing resources unless they put in writing that prostitution should be outlawed. The Tahirih Justice Center is one victim of the loyalty oath. "We applied last year for money from the State Department to do training on trafficking issues in India," says director Miller-Muro. "We were told, 'You don't have a policy on prostitution.' My understanding is, that's one reason we didn't get the funding." NGOs are afraid of Bush Administration blacklisting, says Ann Jordan, director of the Initiative Against Trafficking in Persons (IA1P) at the Washington, OC-based International Human Rights Law Group. "A new round of funding is coming up," Jordan says. "People feel very intimidated about talking about legalizing prostitution." Not only is critical discussion about an important feminist issue being chilled. The "sex slave" panic is also silencing critical discussion about the law-and-order fetish for border control in the age of transnationalized labor. "When are we ever going to have a conversation in this country about the fact that we're holding millions of people hostage to immigration policy?" asks Jordan. "Anti-trafficking activists need to hook up with immigration-rights organizing. And with labor organizing, too." of6 7/13/2012 5:38AM Roundtable Discussion VIOLENCE AND GENDER Volume 1, Number 1, 2014 ª Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. DOI: 10.1089/vio.2013.1503 Sexual Assault in the Military: A Discussion of the Current Status and Future Prevention Participants: Mary Ellen O’Toole, PhD,1 Christopher Kilmartin,2* and Colonel Jeffery Peterson 3 Violence and Gender (Mary Ellen O’Toole; V & G): Chris, your appointment and your new responsibilities are very interesting. Has the problem of sexual assault in the military increased or are we just hearing about it more? I am curious about the timing of your appointment. The message is that we want victims to come forward and have confidence that the system will work. I think this is, by and large, starting to have an effect. And it is an effect that we expected when we started to ramp up the messaging of this throughout the ranks. We expected that more people would come forward who had been sexually assaulted. The other thing we expected was that more individuals, who would otherwise report what is called a ‘‘restricted report,’’ would now feel confident enough to have an ‘‘unrestricted report.’’ We can take more action with these when they are unrestricted. There is an investigation that can take place and a prosecution that can take place, whereas that is not the case with the restricted report. So at a strategic level—at a media level—as well as an internal messaging within the military, we are giving this a lot more attention. I do not think there is necessarily a spike in this kind of behavior. I would agree with Chris. Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: The timing of my appointment was mere serendipity. The Air Force Academy has visiting professors every year, and I had arranged to be the visiting professor here before the problem of military sexual assault really hit the news in a big way. Although, they are very concerned about it here and they already were before some of these news developments. But one reason they were very eager to hire me is that I have expertise in prevention, although let me be clear that I was hired as a faculty member, not an official part of their sexual harassment prevention and response. I have, however, offered to help in any way I can and I have been consulting with many staff members here. I do not think that the problem is increasing; it is just getting more attention because of a few developments, most notably high profile people who have contributed to the problem and the debut of The Invisible War, a film documenting the issues with the military’s response to the problem and building empathy for survivors. So, in response to those very noticeable developments, we have now the Secretary of Defense and the Commanderin-Chief making strong statements condemning military sexual assault. It is a very salient problem right now. Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: I just wanted to say the other high-profile development was an air force pilot who had been convicted of sexual assault. His commander overturned a jury conviction and that led to a lot of outrage, and rightfully so. That was another one of these developments. V & G: Chris, you are in an interesting position looking into the military environment from your prior perspective. How does the problem of sexual assault in the military compare to the same problem outside the military in terms of offenders, victimology, types of assaults, reporting, and so on? V & G: Jeff, in your 30 years of experience with the Marine Corps, do you believe the problem is increasing or are we just hearing about it more? Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: Well, the evidence is that the population of people who come into the military have more experience with sexual assault than the general population, both as offenders and as survivors. Survivors are at statistically increased risk of being revictimized, and offenders are at an increased risk for reoffending. Ninety percent of acquaintance rapes are committed by serial offenders. And so, they come into the military at greater risk to begin with, and there is more sexual assault in the military than in the general population. Colonel Jeffery Peterson: I think Chris has it about right. I do not think there is more of it. There are certainly all of these high-profile cases that are driving a lot of attention. Also, more at the tactical level—at a unit leadership level— what you have is the Commanders, people in positions of leadership, spending a lot more time trying to convince all concerned, particularly victims, that they take the issue seriously and they want to do the right thing. 1 Senior FBI Profiler/Criminal Investigative Analyst (ret.), Behavioral Analysis Unit. Department of Psychology, The University of Mary Washington, Fredericksburg, Virginia. 3 Principal Research Scientist, Center for Naval Analyses. *Current affiliation: Distinguished Visiting Professor, Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, United States Air Force Academy, Colorado Springs, Colorado. 2 3 4 V & G: Sexual assault is a very complicated issue. In the military, what are the three or four primary factors that contribute to this? You have mentioned one, which is the history that people bring with them into the military. Are there others? Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: Sure. The military is a microcosm of American society. And American culture is filled with sexism. In particular, the way we raise boys. The worst thing you can say to a little boy is, ‘‘You run like, dance like, act like, look like, throw like a girl.’’ And so, we tell boys that being like a woman diminishes you. As a result, we give boys, very early on, a real disrespect of girls and women. The other thing that is happening in American culture now is, in my view, an increased acceptance of bullying. If you watch reality television or so-called professional wrestling, which is neither professional nor is it wrestling, it is all about dominance. It is all about overpowering someone. And we see that now as entertainment. I think the basic attitudes toward other people, in some ways, have gotten worse. So that is one factor. Another factor is what I call ‘‘direct facilitators.’’ These are men who conspire to incapacitate women with alcohol, who do not intervene in dangerous situations, and who engage in a conspiracy of silence after someone commits an assault. You have a lot of people who are not directly involved as either offenders or victims, but they are very good at being facilitating bystanders or silent bystanders. The bystander approach, and getting people to act when they see dangerous situations, is very much part of the prevention efforts. There is a real lack of attention to gender in many training efforts. There is a general discomfort with talking openly about military culture and some of the aspects of masculinity in that culture and the need to change that. There is inadequate support for survivors’ feelings when the rapist is not held legally accountable. And how do you think other survivors are going to feel when they are trying to decide whether to come forward or not? So, effective prosecution and caring responses to survivors are also prevention because it encourages others to come forward and stops the serial offenders from hurting someone else. There is a great deal of victim-blaming that goes on, and not just among men but among women, too. Some common thoughts along this line are: ‘‘She was assaulted or he was assaulted because they were stupid or they had poor judgment or they drank too much, and I do not do those things, so I am safe.’’ So victim-blaming is a security operation. And victims themselves engage in self blame, thinking that, ‘‘If I do not do those things again, then I will not be attacked.’’ So I always tell people, you do not need to bother blaming victims, they are experts at it themselves. First and foremost, a lack of adequate training for military leadership. Leaders need to learn about the problem, examine their own behavior and sexism, lead by example, and change with the times. Leaders who engage in and/or tolerate sexual harassment increase the risk of women under their command being assaulted by a factor of four to five. We can stop 75–80% of it tomorrow if we can remove or reform the harassing leaders and train the good people in leadership, who are in the vast majority, to learn about the ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION issue and teach those under their command about it (as opposed to outsourcing the training) thus demonstrating their commitment to stopping military sexual assault. Then a couple of other things. We also need to allow prosecutors to operate independently and take away the commander’s power to overturn a rape conviction, which is not only a miscarriage of justice for the victim, but also sends a strong message to everyone that the military does not take this felonious behavior seriously. And right now Representative Gillibrand’s bill to do this is in the legislative process. Also what has been discussed is to have leaders be evaluated by how well they handled the problem and removed if they have performed inadequately. I think that would go a long way, as well. V & G: Jeff, would you like to weigh in on this? Colonel Jeffery Peterson: I cannot say that I necessarily agree with everything that Chris says. I think there have been a lot of folks who have taken shots at the military justice system. It is important to understand that commanders, while they have certain authorities under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, do not somehow operate with impunity, with unilateral judgments on these things. When you talk about allegations of sexual misconduct, normally the commander is not even the first one to know about them. Sexual assault response coordinators, uniformed victim advocates, and law enforcement officials typically know these things have happened before the Commander ever finds out about them. And so, the commander is an important part of this, but he or she is not the only part of it. His or her actions in terms of whether they sweep something under the rug or not is really affected by the fact that there are many other parties involved, both from an investigative standpoint as well as staff judge advocates, who advise commanders on what the evidence looks like and how to proceed. We have seen a couple of high-profile cases recently in which people have overturned convictions—I think there were two air force senior officers who overturned some actions—and it makes it look like those commanders are just operating on their own set of rules without any kind of legal guidance. I have been a commanding officer, a chief of staff, and a court martial convening authority for many years during my career and have been right in the midst of these cases when decisions are made. Can you have a cavalier commander who doesn’t handle these cases correctly? Certainly that could be the case, but that has not been my experience—commanders take these things very seriously and endeavor to do what is right. They get plenty of guidance from lawyers and other law enforcement officials and they that advice seriously. So the commander tends to be the lightning rod for a lot of this, but it is a mischaracterization to somehow think that the commander is able to just call all the shots without any kind of influence that ensures he or she handles it the right way. In terms of the things that are contributing to this problem, I have long believed that lack of critical mass is important. Critical mass is more than just numbers; it is also about what levels of seniority you have within that subpopulation, as well. It has been my experience that larger numbers help. Larger numbers of women in positions of ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION leadership can start to curb a lot of this stuff. So I am a big proponent of the whole notion of critical mass, and I think that it matters a lot. The other thing that Chris mentioned is the military culture with its strong masculine orientation. What concerns me is that in such an environment, you can take individuals who may have some level of proclivity for this kind of behavior but who may otherwise not engage in it; then when you put them in an environment that they perceive to be permissive, they may engage in these kinds of criminal behaviors. I believe you can take a person who, on the margin, may not have committed these kinds of crimes and turn them into somebody who will. The other thing I think is important is getting people to report. There is a lot of focus on the notion that people do not want to come forward because they do not believe that their chain of command will operate or will deal with these things in a responsible manner. There are some people who feel that way. But, increasingly, the message that I hear, particularly from those women who are a little bit more senior and have added positional authority, is that one of the reasons that (victims) do not come forward is because they do not want to replace the pride and dignity in their life with sympathy. As one female Marine colonel, a friend of mine, put it, ‘‘It has nothing to do with me not trusting my chain of command. It has everything to do with the minute that I divulge what happened, people are going to look at me and they are not going to see a Marine colonel anymore. They are not going to see a Marine leader. They are going to see somebody who deserves sympathy, and I do not want to be treated as someone who is deserving of sympathy, who is somehow construed as weak and needs sympathy.’’ We need to understand why people do not report. And it goes beyond just thinking that commanders will not deal responsibly with these things. One of the other problems that you have to deal with here is the issue of unlawful command influence. What that means is that a senior commander cannot dictate to a junior commander how they should handle any particular legal case. We have seen that in the news with comments made by the president. There have been some other senior leaders who have made comments about these things. So when these cases go to court, we hear about unlawful command influence and how senior people have dictated how these things should play out in the courtroom. However, it is important that senior commanders be able to enter into a conversation with junior commanders, not about the specifics of the case, but at least be able to talk to junior commanders about how to deal with some of these cases, at least in the abstract. In these military units, we have this message that comes across as, ‘‘You are responsible for everything that happens or does not happen in your unit.’’ That should never be confused with, ‘‘You can control it all.’’ You never control it all. Bad things are going to happen in units that are led by extremely principled, very talented leaders. So the key message must not be: ‘‘You are going to be judged on how many problems you have in your unit,’’ but instead, ‘‘You are going to be judged on how you deal with those problems.’’ That is an important part of this. We have to get junior commanders to understand that these things have to see the 5 light of day. The message must be ‘‘You will, in a sense, be rewarded for letting them see the light of day and dealing responsibly with them,’’ so that we can get rid of this notion that somehow commanders are part of the problem because they do not want to tackle these things forthrightly. In my 30 years of leading Marines, there were times when I thought some commanders should have been more aggressive in pursuing allegations. That said, I never encountered a situation in which a fellow commander swept one of these things under the rug and worried more about his own unit prestige or his own unit reputation than he or she did about good order and discipline. I think those situations are really few and far between. They are really ugly when they happen, but, by and large, the command selection processes put the very best officers, the very best leaders, in charge of these units. This process selects the kind of person who is going to deal with these things in a responsible way. V & G: That is an excellent and very thorough and interesting response. I think that, of course, if we could find ways to prevent these incidents, we would be way ahead of the game. And one of the things that I was interested in that you said, Chris, is that military people have greater experience with rape, both as victims and perpetrators. Is there a way that we could implement some preventive action by prescreening people before they come into the military? Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: I think, frankly, it would be difficult, unless someone was actually charged and convicted, and the military already screens for prior criminality. It would be unconscionable to screen people out because they have been survivors. That would be an incredible exercise in victim-blaming. But from the offender point of view, most of what we know about offenders comes from surveys and interviews in which they were protected from accountability, although offenders will sometimes admit to behaviors that meet the legal definition of rape because they do not define it as a crime. So, you might catch a few people by asking them those questions. But people with a significant criminal history, even if it does not include sexual assault, should not be allowed in the military. And perhaps background checks could include an investigation, specific questions asked about the person’s attitude toward women, victim-blaming, and other rapesupportive attitudes. I think that (interviews) could be made more thorough and might be able to catch more people before they come in, but I do not think that is the answer. V & G: Mary Ellen, is there such thing as preventive profiling, that you look for characteristics or aspects of human behavior as a way to screen them out of situations in which they may perpetrate crimes such as rape? Mary Ellen O’Toole: That is a great question. As Chris said, I am not aware of anything that exists, at least right now. And I know, Jeff, you spent a lot of time on this, but I am not aware of anything that exists right now that would allow that kind of a level of screening. Not that something could not be designed to be more probative in the beginning, but I am just not aware of something right now that would be able to do that. Now, Jeff, I know that when you 6 were working with the Marine Corps that was an area of particular interest for you. Am I right on that? Colonel Jeffery Peterson: Well, yes. I spent 10 years on recruiting duty. I have commanded recruiting units. As a major, I spent 3 years as the commander the recruiting station in Montgomery, Alabama. I spent 3 years as the commander for all Marine Corps recruiting in the Midwest. I was the chief of staff for all recruiting in the eastern part of the United States and then finished my time on recruiting duty as the chief of staff of the Marine Corps Recruiting Command. So I probably have as much time on recruiting duty as any military officer around. I would like to respond a little bit to Chris’ point about screening out victims. This is often a point that is not well understood. There is nothing about being a victim of sexual assault that makes you ineligible for service in the military, nothing whatsoever. What causes people to end up being screened out is when the sexual assault results in some kind of a psychological condition or physical condition that is otherwise incompatible with military service. So, if you were raped and you ended up with some kind of a psychological diagnosis that involves counseling and some kind of a psychological condition that is incompatible with military service, then the reason that you would not be allowed to join the military is because of that condition, not because of what caused the condition, but because of the condition itself. That is very unfortunate, and I understand exactly what Chris is saying, but it is important to understand that having been sexually assaulted or been a victim of any crime does not make you ineligible for military service. What I would say is that the military services do screen for this behavior. They do it a lot. But, as Chris pointed out, unless there are police or court documents that are available, or the applicant voluntarily divulges some history that gives a hint to the recruiter or to other personnel in the enlistment processing chain, it is difficult to discover this stuff. Juvenile offenses, in particular, create a real challenge in this regard. There sometimes are work-arounds, but if the applicant discloses nothing and everything is expunged or sealed, the recruiter just does not know about it. Sometimes you learn about these histories indirectly. For example, you might be considering enlisting an applicant who did not finish high school. And when the recruiter goes to talk with the guidance counselor or the principal, they get some hint about some misconduct with which they can then confront the applicant and try to get the rest of the story. You have chief medical officers at the military entrance processing stations and they are also asking questions. They are looking at histories of counseling or legal histories. So, everyone in the whole chain of screening is trying to discover these kinds of histories and these kinds of indicators. One of the things, interestingly enough, that recruiting commanders do when they see these big, high-profile cases on TV is to very quickly go into our automated systems to find out what the enlistment waiver history is on the person who is accused of this particular crime. I personally have done that any number of times as a recruiting commander or asked my staff the questions: ‘‘Did we recruit that guy? Did we screen him? What is his waiver history?’’ Almost invariably what you find is very trivial waiver histories. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION Maybe something like they experimented with marijuana a couple of times or a couple of speeding tickets or whatever. But there is no smoking gun in there that says we should have never put that person in. The services have become very risk-averse to enlisting anyone who has any kind of sexual misconduct history. And I will give you a good example of this. I dealt with this particular case myself. It was when a father came home, found his 17-year-old daughter and her 18-year-old boyfriend having sex. The father called the police and the boyfriend was arrested for something along the lines of statutory rape. Well, fast-forward two years later. The two are married. They have a child. The father is very embarrassed that he made this phone call, and so on and so forth, and writes this pleading letter that we let his son-in-law join the military. The fact of the matter is, we did not enlist him. That might seem unreasonable, but these situations are really toxic and commanders are just not interested in taking on such cases. A lot of attention is paid to this but, again, so much of enlistment screening is about self-disclosure and the applicant giving you hints that something might be out there. Our juvenile justice system really protects that information and, almost invariably, you are going to really struggle as a recruiter to get information if the youngster does not divulge it, because the court system is very good about protecting that information from military recruiters. V & G: Thank you. What an interesting response. Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: I would like to add, what if we screen the guy out and he does not join the military and instead he rapes women in the civilian world? Is that really all that much better? He is still hurting a fellow American. So, a public health approach to sexual assault would be helpful if we knew what some of the risk factors are. We need to reduce those risk factors, and we need to increase the protective factors in the general population, and then we will see less sexual assault across the board. There are cultures in which sexual assault is very rare or even to the point of being nonexistent. So when we talk about military cultural change, we need American cultural change. Mary Ellen O’Toole: Chris, would you please refer us to your source when you are talking about the risk factors and the prohibiters? Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: Well, you can certainly look at a couple of my books, The Masculine Self and Men’s Violence Against Women, Origins, Consequences and Remedies, and any of David Lisak’s work. He has done tremendous work with talking about offenders and characteristics of offenders. But if you get The Masculine Self, you will see a pretty concise summary of that. I do not know of any study specifically on military sexual assault offenders. And just as importantly, I have seen no studies on male-on-male offenders. And the kind of thing that most people do not know is last year there were 26,000 sexual assaults in the military, and 14,000 of them were against men. Male victims are much less likely to come forward. So women are at a greater statistical risk but, given that the military in total is around 84% to 85% male, the raw numbers are really not very different. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION So we have not seen any studies on male-on-male offenders. I would not be surprised to find that they have some of the same characteristics. Prison rape is all about enforcing a dominance hierarchy. And I would suspect the same is true in the military, but we have not seen any studies. In the spring of 2012, there were about 20 of us that the Commandant of the Marine Corps brought together for an operational planning team on sexual assault. It was basically a working group to look at what the Marine Corps needed to do to start taking a much more aggressive approach to this. One of the things that I did right off the bat is I reviewed all of the sexual assault cases that had taken place over the last couple of years in the Marine Corps. I took them to the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, and I had them pull all of those individuals up in the system to look at what their waiver histories were. Almost without exception, there were either no waivers or they were extremely trivial waivers. We found no situation in there whatsoever where we looked at it and said, ‘‘This might have been a foreshadowing. This kind of enlistment history or enlistment waiver history might have been an indication.’’ So, to the point about profiling, there has been a lot of discussion about that in the military services, and a lot of people want organizations like the one I work for right now to develop some econometric model that is going to somehow sort out the contributing factors to the probability of someone being a sexual predator. We just do not have the kind of data elements that are going to somehow reveal a bunch of smoking guns in terms of what the predictors are. V & G: Jeff, can you explain to me what waivers are and how they are used? Colonel Jeffery Peterson: A waiver means that you do not meet the standards for entry into the military. For example, the maximum age to enlist in the Marine Corps is 28. If you are 29 years old, you are ineligible. But there are waivers for that. In other words, commanders at different levels can essentially excuse, if you will, the fact that you are 29 years old because you are in great physical condition. Police involvement, for example, you might have had a petty theft when you were 14 years old. Well you are now ineligible for military service, but recruiting commanders at various levels, depending on the seriousness of it, can approve that waiver. We look at all the different factors, a whole person kind of a look and say, ‘‘Okay, Johnny got caught at 14 years old stealing some bubble gum out of the 7-11. He had to write a letter for the judge. He has been good ever since. He has graduated from high school. He has had no other issues or problems and so we are not going to prevent him from joining the military.’’ So we waive his misconduct and allow him to enlist in the military. V & G: As a final question, is there anything that you can recommend at this point that would decrease the numbers of sexual assaults in the military? Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: Put one tenth of the money that is spent on counterterrorism into sexual assault prevention and response. Do extensive training, especially of commanders, 7 that includes a thorough examination of gender and military culture. Remove commanders who engage in sexual harassment. Hold bystanders responsible for conspiracy before or after the crime. Promote leaders who will demonstrate and support gender egalitarian values. We are seeing the military responding better than they have in the past. There is still a long way to go, but I think they are on the right track. Strong statements from top people have a great deterrent effect and hopefully we will keep this momentum going. I will give you a quick anecdote. Two years ago I was invited to do presentations on sexual assault at three military bases in the United States; San Antonio, Fort Sam Houston, Randolph, and Lackland Air Force bases. At the first base, a Three-star general in charge of the whole installation paid for me to come out of his personal budget. He introduced me, had his picture taken with me, attended my presentation, and reinforced the message after I was finished. All of these actions gave a clear message that he was serious about this issue. The next day I went to another Air Force Base where I was supposed to do a presentation, mandatory, for 300 people and only 75 showed up. So clearly it was wellknown there that you would not be held accountable if you missed a mandatory training. And then over to the final base, where attendance was completely voluntary, and I did a presentation for seven people. So, the contrast in the leadership between those three places could not be stronger. So are we surprised to find that the last base I visited had systemic sexual assault problems of recruits being victimized because the leadership did not take a proactive stance? We know that leadership matters in this issue, and we need to train the leaders. We need the leaders to invest their time and their efforts in learning about this problem and learning not only about the problem of sexual assault perpetration but of the foundations of sexism and inequality, etc., that make sexual assault more likely. V & G: Thank you, Chris. That is very profound. Jeff, would you like to add something? Colonel Jeffery Peterson: This is not one of those problems that we are going resolve in one fell swoop or through a revolutionary approach to leadership. These things do not happen at the strategic level; they happen one at a time, down in the trenches of barracks and in military settings. I would just offer that there are a lot of things that we could do. But from the standpoint of leaders and what commanders can do down at their level, I would say our leaders really need to be more thoughtful in their words and their actions. Too frequently one finds that leaders have two sets of standards of speech and conduct, one when women are around and another when they are not. So when young, impressionable men see that leaders feel free to demonstrate less discretion when not in mixed company, they end up thinking that the leader’s actions around women are contrived and not reflective of their real stance. This can have a real emboldening effect on those who see that happening, and the conclusion they come away with is, ‘‘Well, the commander is not as serious about this as he says 8 he is because when women are not around he is participating in the same kind of banter that the rest of us are about this issue.’’ We have to be very careful about our speech and our conduct and make sure that we do not have two different standards for that. The other thing that is important is that the cost of lesser gender biases and inappropriate behaviors needs to be a lot higher to prevent the kind of behaviors and attitudes that lead to the more serious misconduct. These things are always best dealt with when you see telltale signs at the beginning of individuals acting a certain way or treating people in a certain way. We must come down hard on the front end as opposed to letting people become emboldened to the point where they think they can get away with a lot of stuff. I understand Chris’s frustration with the Air Force. I think it is important here though not to disenfranchise commanders. We certainly have a couple of bad apples or some number of bad apples as commanders. But commanders are guys or gals who are out there on the front lines trying to solve these problems every day, and the vast majority of them are good and honorable. I think we can become just a little bit carried away if we start trying to make the whole problem out to be a commander problem, because where they may be responsible for what their unit does or fails to do, that should never be confused with their ability to control it all, despite their best efforts. So, I do not think that we want to get in the commanderbashing mode, and I think that can really disenfranchise them. And quite frankly, they are the ones you are going to need to help solve these problems, and so they need to be part of the team and part of the solution. ROUNDTABLE DISCUSSION V & G: Chris, do you have a final word? Dr. Christopher Kilmartin: Yes, I agree with almost everything that Jeff said. And I absolutely agree that commanders can be a great part of the solution. But we need to be more vigilant, and there are some bad apples. And I absolutely agree that the vast majority of commanders are good and honorable people, and the vast majority of men are good and honorable people. They are a very small percentage of men who commit these crimes, but the ones who do it, do it over and over again. And we know that the commander has the responsibility for setting the tone, and so I think where the money is, is to get the commanders, as Jeff said, to be a part of the solution. And that is where you are going to stop most of it. But then we also need to get those bad apples and remove them. V & G: Excellent. I thank you very much for your time. Special thanks also to our Editor-in-Chief and participant, Mary Ellen O’Toole. Disclaimers Colonel (USMC retired) Peterson’s comments are his own opinions and do not constitute the opinion of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Navy, the United States Marine Corps, the Center for Naval Analyses, or any sponsors on whose behalf the Center for Naval Analyses conducts research and analysis. Christopher Kilmartin speaks as a private citizen, is not a Department of Defense employee, and is not authorized to speak on behalf of the Air Force Academy. 
Purchase answer to see full attachment