Disgraced Army general, Jeffrey A. Sinclair, gets $20,000 fine, no jail time.
Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair carried on a three-year affair
with a captain and had two other inappropriate relationships with
subordinates. He was reprimanded and fined $20,000 in pay. He will not serve any jail
time.
Coast Guard Academy Cadet Webster Smith had consensual sex with a confidant and girl friend; he received six months jail time and a bad conduct discharge. Is it fair? Is that what we call "equal protection of the law"? It was an American Tragedy. It was a mockery of justice. It was a case that will live in infamy. It was a travesty!
(Read all about The Webster Smith Case at http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021/ref=la_B006WQKFJM_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395709342&sr=1-1)
(Read all about The Webster Smith Case at http://www.amazon.com/CONDUCT-UNBECOMING-Officer-Lady-Conviction/dp/1460978021/ref=la_B006WQKFJM_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395709342&sr=1-1)
Admiral Thad W. Allen, Commandant of the Coast Guard, speaking at the
Academy on 8 September 2006 did not mention the Webster Smith Case. But,
talking with reporters afterward, Allen said THE PROCESS used to deal
with the issue worked as it should.
Apparently, Commandant Allen did not know that the System was stalled. He did not seem to be aware that his fellow Admiral, the Superintendent, was stonewalling the System.
(Read more at http://cgachasehall.blogspot.com/2006/10/admiral-van-sice-has-no-respect-for.html)
Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair admitted carrying on a prolonged, turbulent affair with an officer under his direct command and having improper relationships with two other women. He was reprimanded and fined $20,000 by a military judge Thursday March 20th.
To his visible relief, however, Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair
was spared a jail sentence. The decorated combat veteran hugged his
lawyers and friends after his sentence was imposed by Col. James Pohl,
the military judge who oversaw his court-martial at Fort Bragg, N.C.
Apparently, Commandant Allen did not know that the System was stalled. He did not seem to be aware that his fellow Admiral, the Superintendent, was stonewalling the System.
(Read more at http://cgachasehall.blogspot.com/2006/10/admiral-van-sice-has-no-respect-for.html)
Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair admitted carrying on a prolonged, turbulent affair with an officer under his direct command and having improper relationships with two other women. He was reprimanded and fined $20,000 by a military judge Thursday March 20th.
“The system worked. I’ve always been proud of my Army,”
Sinclair told reporters. “All I want to do now is go north and hug my
kids and wife.”
Yes, the System worked. That sounds awfully like what Admiral Thad Allen said about the court-martial of Cadet Webster Smith when he was interviewed at the United states Coast Guard Academy after the first court-martial of a cadet in Coast Guard history.
The big question is "for whom'? For whom did the System work? It works a lot better for some than for others. Greg Jacob of the Service Women’s Action Network said the case
demonstrates the need for legislation that would strip commanders of the
authority to prosecute cases and give that power to seasoned military
lawyers. The bill, backed by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., was
defeated in the Senate earlier this month.
The Defense
Department's failure so far to change the military's male-dominated
culture is driving a vocal group of mainly female lawmakers led by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, D-N.Y., to advocate aggressive reforms.
(Senator Kirsten Gilllibrand, D-N.Y.)
Tinkering at the edges, they argue, won't produce the seismic shift needed to send the message that sexist attitudes and behaviors will no longer be tolerated. Victims need to be confident that if they report a crime their allegations won't be discounted and they won't face retaliation.
For two years, Sinclair’s court-martial had made him the public face of the military’s struggle to prevent and police sexual misconduct in the ranks. He was only the third Army general to face court-martial in 60 years, a measure that critics called emblematic of the military’s reluctance to hold senior commanders accountable for all kinds of wrongdoing.
Although Sinclair was pleased with the outcome, his chief accuser and some advocacy groups for sex-crime victims expressed deep disappointment. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) called the sentence “a mockery of military justice” and a “laughable punishment.”
Sinclair was originally charged with crimes that could have landed him in prison for life.
His accuser, a much younger female captain who served on his staffs in Iraq and Afghanistan, reported in March 2012 that she had been the married general’s lover for three years. She also said that he had sexually assaulted her on two occasions and once threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about the affair. Under the sexual assault charges, Sinclair was accused of twice forcing the
female captain to perform oral sex and threatening to kill her if she
told anyone. The Army prosecuted Sinclair for those offenses for nearly two years, but suddenly dropped the charges this month and cut a plea deal with
the general after prosecutors admitted they had doubts about the
reliability of the general’s mistress. Their hand was also forced after
the judge ruled that there was evidence the Army had allowed politics
and external considerations to influence its handling of the case.
The accuser’s attorney, Jamie Barnett, a retired Navy rear admiral, said she was “obviously devastated” that Sinclair’s sentence wasn’t more severe.
“It’s a terrible outcome, and by failing to render justice today, the Army’s going to face the reality that this could happen again,” said Barnett, now a lawyer in private practice. “It’s really beyond disappointing. It’s a travesty for the Army and military justice in general.” Rear Admiral Barnett also said the woman was very disappointed with the sentence. Barnett called it a “slap on the wrist.”
In that case, a military judge at the Washington Navy Yard found a former Navy football player not guilty of sexually assaulting a female classmate at an April 2012 party. The Navy had originally charged two other midshipmen in the same incident but later cleared both as the case slowly crumbled.
In the past, military leaders have been criticized for not taking sex abuse allegations seriously and for mistreating victims. But in the courts-martial that culminated Thursday, the evidence of sexual assault rested largely on the testimony of the accusers, both of whom struggled to give a consistent and clear account.
Advocacy groups for sexual-assault victims were quick to seize on the outcomes as another sign that the military justice system is ill-equipped to handle such cases.
Nancy Parrish, the president of Protect our Defenders, said the results would discourage other members of the military from coming forward to report sex crimes.
“The military’s promises of ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual offenses continues to ring hollow as yet another high ranking official is let off the hook,” she said of the Sinclair case. “It has been long known within the military that General Sinclair conducted himself in outrageous and inappropriate, even unlawful ways. His behavior was not addressed until this victim came forward.”
Sinclair’s attorney, Richard Scheff, retorted that people who thought the general got away with a light sentence were ignoring the facts. “Critics of this ruling who weren’t in court and haven’t seen the evidence have no idea what they’re talking about.”
Sinclair admitted the affair but vigorously denied assaulting or threatening the woman. His lawyers portrayed her as a jealous mistress who spoke out after she read suggestive e-mails he had sent to other women, and because he refused to divorce his wife.
He could be punished further financially. His attorneys have said they expect he will have to retire from the Army at a lower rank, which would diminish his pension benefits.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, declined to comment on Sinclair’s sentence. But he acknowledged that the military needed to do more to deter and prosecute sex crimes.
“We know we need to get better. We know that there are changes that need to continue to be made,” Kirby told reporters. “Our focus is on making sure victims have the confidence to report and that those who are proven guilty of a crime are held accountable.”
The big question is "for whom'? For whom did the System work? It works a lot better for some than for others.
Tinkering at the edges, they argue, won't produce the seismic shift needed to send the message that sexist attitudes and behaviors will no longer be tolerated. Victims need to be confident that if they report a crime their allegations won't be discounted and they won't face retaliation.
“This case has illustrated a military justice system
in dire need of independence from the chain of command,” Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand said in a
statement.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., who fought the bill, said the case reinforced her side of the argument.
“One
of its lessons highlights what we already know — that commanders are
often more aggressive than prosecutors in pursuing prosecutions and
vetting these cases,” Sarah Feldman said.
For two years, Sinclair’s court-martial had made him the public face of the military’s struggle to prevent and police sexual misconduct in the ranks. He was only the third Army general to face court-martial in 60 years, a measure that critics called emblematic of the military’s reluctance to hold senior commanders accountable for all kinds of wrongdoing.
Although Sinclair was pleased with the outcome, his chief accuser and some advocacy groups for sex-crime victims expressed deep disappointment. Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) called the sentence “a mockery of military justice” and a “laughable punishment.”
Sinclair was originally charged with crimes that could have landed him in prison for life.
His accuser, a much younger female captain who served on his staffs in Iraq and Afghanistan, reported in March 2012 that she had been the married general’s lover for three years. She also said that he had sexually assaulted her on two occasions and once threatened to kill her and her family if she told anyone about the affair.
The case started to crumble as Sinclair’s lawyers
hammered away at the captain’s credibility and raised questions about
whether Sinclair’s commander improperly pressed ahead with a trial
because of political considerations — namely, a desire to show the
Army’s resolve to combat sexual misconduct.
Earlier
this year, the lead prosecutor came to believe the woman lied under
oath at a pre-trial hearing about when she found an old iPhone
containing messages between her and the general. Within weeks, the
prosecutor was found drunk and suicidal in a Washington hotel,
distraught over a superior’s refusal to drop the sexual assault charges,
according to testimony. He was later removed from the case.
In
the end, Sinclair pleaded guilty to adultery, maltreatment of his
accuser and two other improper relationships. He also admitted to making
derogatory comments about women and, when challenged by his staff,
replying: “I’m a general, I’ll say whatever the [expletive] I want.”The accuser’s attorney, Jamie Barnett, a retired Navy rear admiral, said she was “obviously devastated” that Sinclair’s sentence wasn’t more severe.
“It’s a terrible outcome, and by failing to render justice today, the Army’s going to face the reality that this could happen again,” said Barnett, now a lawyer in private practice. “It’s really beyond disappointing. It’s a travesty for the Army and military justice in general.” Rear Admiral Barnett also said the woman was very disappointed with the sentence. Barnett called it a “slap on the wrist.”
“A sentence doesn’t take away any of the pain and anguish that she has endured,” Barnett said.
Experts in military law agreed the sentence was lenient.
“I
can’t believe it,” said retired Lt. Col. Gary Solis, a former military
judge who now teaches law at West Point and Georgetown University. Solis
said Sinclair “is an individual who should not be a general officer. He
should have gone to jail and dismissed from the Army.”
Still,
retired Maj. Gen. Walt Huffman, a Texas Tech University law professor
who served as the Army’s top lawyer, said: “His career is being
terminated. That much is for sure. He’s being fired for all practical
purposes.”
Coincidentally,
Sinclair was sentenced on the same day that another high-profile sexual
assault prosecution in the military collapsed.In that case, a military judge at the Washington Navy Yard found a former Navy football player not guilty of sexually assaulting a female classmate at an April 2012 party. The Navy had originally charged two other midshipmen in the same incident but later cleared both as the case slowly crumbled.
In the past, military leaders have been criticized for not taking sex abuse allegations seriously and for mistreating victims. But in the courts-martial that culminated Thursday, the evidence of sexual assault rested largely on the testimony of the accusers, both of whom struggled to give a consistent and clear account.
Advocacy groups for sexual-assault victims were quick to seize on the outcomes as another sign that the military justice system is ill-equipped to handle such cases.
Nancy Parrish, the president of Protect our Defenders, said the results would discourage other members of the military from coming forward to report sex crimes.
“The military’s promises of ‘zero tolerance’ for sexual offenses continues to ring hollow as yet another high ranking official is let off the hook,” she said of the Sinclair case. “It has been long known within the military that General Sinclair conducted himself in outrageous and inappropriate, even unlawful ways. His behavior was not addressed until this victim came forward.”
Sinclair’s attorney, Richard Scheff, retorted that people who thought the general got away with a light sentence were ignoring the facts. “Critics of this ruling who weren’t in court and haven’t seen the evidence have no idea what they’re talking about.”
Sinclair admitted the affair but vigorously denied assaulting or threatening the woman. His lawyers portrayed her as a jealous mistress who spoke out after she read suggestive e-mails he had sent to other women, and because he refused to divorce his wife.
He could be punished further financially. His attorneys have said they expect he will have to retire from the Army at a lower rank, which would diminish his pension benefits.
Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Pentagon’s chief spokesman, declined to comment on Sinclair’s sentence. But he acknowledged that the military needed to do more to deter and prosecute sex crimes.
“We know we need to get better. We know that there are changes that need to continue to be made,” Kirby told reporters. “Our focus is on making sure victims have the confidence to report and that those who are proven guilty of a crime are held accountable.”
No comments:
Post a Comment