Do you think changing the term "Victim" to "Target" will make it more likely for a sexual assault to get reported?

2016-04-24T02:04:54-04:00

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2016 2:07 AM

2016-04-24T02:07:31-04:00

I read recently that males do not like to be considered victims and this prevents many that have experienced a sexual assault to not come forward. The Bullying victim term is Target. ( http://www.workplacebullying.org )

Workplace Bullying Institute - WBI - Help, Education, Research

Work Shouldn't Hurt!

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2016 2:13 AM

2016-04-24T02:13:12-04:00

CSM Private RallyPoint Member Victim has a negative connotation, where as Target implies that it could have been anyone. The word Target could make it more likely for a sexual assault to be reported.

Response by SSG Bethany Viglietta made Apr 24 at 2016 2:29 AM

2016-04-24T02:29:41-04:00

Males are not the only ones who do not want to be called victims. Changing the wording will likely result in more reported sexual assaults from both genders.

Response by SCPO Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2016 2:42 AM

2016-04-24T02:42:27-04:00

Highly doubtful. But more importantly, the word "target" strongly suggests premeditation and knowingly. Whereas, the larger percentage of sexual assaults are spontaneous or the result of someone being in the wrong place at the wrong time. "Victim" properly conveys the appropriate sense that there has reportedly been a crime committed against a human being.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2016 3:54 AM

2016-04-24T03:54:48-04:00

I think it will not, but either way it is very dispicable act. I would hope what ever term we call it people decide to us the resources and seek help. We changed Mental Health to Behavior Health and it did not stop some of the things that were targeted.

Response by SGT Eric Bishop made Apr 24 at 2016 5:08 AM

2016-04-24T05:08:56-04:00

Even if you change terminology, 90% of male soldiers may be too embarrassed to report it, of course we all know that already. With tha being said, it is our jobs as NCO's is to ensure that we are reliable no matter what, so that if the situation occurs, that they can confidently report any kind of assalt, sexual or otherwise, bullying can also lead to those situations, remember folks zero tolerance policy.

Response by SPC Kenneth Koerperich made Apr 24 at 2016 5:25 AM

2016-04-24T05:25:38-04:00

No, because anybody can be a Target, but the Victim needs to report & confront attacker. Will still be a stigma, as most are afraid of reprisals before justice happens.

Response by CSM Darieus ZaGara made Apr 24 at 2016 7:39 AM

2016-04-24T07:39:49-04:00

Unfortunately words are just that. Trust and confidence in leadership and personal strength through awareness, training and the knowledge that the organization will take appropriate action is all that will work. There is a culture in America that has effected the way that our women react to these horrific acts based on community values and upbringing. It takes a reshaping in society before women will ever be truly comfortable in seeking help and support.

I will get off my soap box.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 24 at 2016 2:32 PM

2016-04-24T14:32:22-04:00

Is it the most accurate word? If yes use it. If not, what is?

I want to say "claimant" is used in the Legal word. But there are probably other nouns that are more accurate. Just like we changed the use of Husband/Wife to Spouse and Children to Dependent/etc.

We need to find the "most accurate" (if there is one) word for it.

LTC John Shaw Your thoughts, Sir?

Response by Capt Tom Brown made Apr 24 at 2016 7:50 PM

2016-04-24T19:50:07-04:00

CSM Private RallyPoint Member Impossible for me to even imagine what I or anyone would or does feel. Whether I would rather be called a 'target of rape' or a 'victim of rape', is hard to say. Would have to defer to the people involved and how each prefers to be characterized. Whatever the outcome there needs to be swift and positive reaction by authorities of every stripe and rank, esp in the military, with no stigma attached.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 25 at 2016 12:13 AM

2016-04-25T00:13:42-04:00

I really do feel words do have power. A victim has to get out of the victim labeling to not just survive but to thrive. Victim to Victor. So a "Target" is the person the "acts or acts" happened to by any kind of perpetrator. It can be premeditated or not. The "Target" can choose not to be victim labeled which helps during the recovery period. In my opinion the nomenclature should be perpetrator and target. I personally do not want to be called a victim... EVER.

Response by Cpl Jon Westbrook made Apr 25 at 2016 8:54 AM

2016-04-25T08:54:55-04:00

I understand the statistics here, but lets take a step back. The world isn't what it was 10 years ago, and I believe males and females are both equally as likely to come forward. We've undergone tremendous leaps and bounds in the form of sexual assault/harassment awareness in the last five years to the point where it felt like every two months I was sitting through another 3 hour class. Gender roles are quickly becoming a thing of the past for the better, and women and men are more equal than they've ever been. I think it would be wise for the military to realize this and adjust the SAPR/SHARP training to account for it.

Furthermore I think changing the wording is actually a fantastic idea. To imply that someone was targeted rather than victimized is both more correct in the literal sense, and also carries a less demeaning psychological implication. Educating service members on the difference could make a big difference.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 6:20 AM

2016-04-26T06:20:35-04:00

No I personally think victim is a key word for two reasons .
1. Victim personalizes it
2. It takes 3 things for a crime to be committed
1-Victim
2- Predator
3- Opertunity
If you take anyone of the three away from the equation then there will be no crime. Victim personalizes whereas target depersonalize the crime.

Response by CAPT Don Bosch, EdD made Apr 26 at 2016 8:05 AM

2016-04-26T08:05:08-04:00

Both are difficult terms. "Victim" by definition it puts the rape reporter into a protected status and the accused into a "guilty-until-proven-innocent" status (the actual words of an NCIS agent in a recent court martial I attended; the accused was exonerated, fortunately). "Target" would also suggest that the accused "targeted" his/her accuser (premeditated), even those cases when a rape accuser gives consent at first but revokes it later, or reconsiders the event after the fact. Ultimately "victim" is a legal and policy term intended to make reporting more likely. Not sure if there's a more effective term, but I doubt it would be changed at this point.

Response by SSG Keith Amacher made Apr 26 at 2016 8:15 AM

2016-04-26T08:15:26-04:00

Sergeant Major you have an excellent point I agree with. Any soldier would rather say we were a target not a victim, that is a sign of weakness

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 8:26 AM

2016-04-26T08:26:11-04:00

I agree with SSG Viglietta and CSM Baldwin. In combat you don't make yourself a target by having situational awareness every where you go, now you can still get attacked but most likely it's going to be more combatants and bigger weapons used against you. Outside of combat most crime can be prevented by being aware of what's around you and making sound choices, having fellow soldiers with you also deters potential criminals, and when it comes to those that you know when the soldiers around you have a reputation of not letting even their peers misbehave in any way you have another deterrent in place. Now even with all that there are some who will still act regardless of these factors. It is imperative for the behaviors listed to be adopted by the targeted individual and their peers. But if the attack occurs in spite of these deterrents how we identify the attacked individual can be the difference of recovery and a downward spiral. Even using the word victim some will overcome what happened to them but for others it may deter a motivation to overcome the issue. I think the army has done a good job in teaching its members that we look out for one another at all times. Now the targeted individual has their own responsibility just like their peers. Mainly to not act like a target. Their buddy's are not going to be joined at the hip at all times. Even with these they can still be attacked. Even a minefield wall fence and watch towers will not keep a shrewd foe out, these just make it more difficult. Outside the army from what I have seen some people promote a victim mentality and this is not good. Just like in combat or in the wild, if you act like a target you will become the target. I believe that the army is on the right track there may be some details to tweak but the direction is good. But I have this agains those advocating "eradicate" the issue. I believe we will never "eradicate" sexual assault. BUT I do believe we can reduce the problem to the point that attacks are few and far between and when they do happen justice is swift and decisive.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 8:32 AM

2016-04-26T08:32:20-04:00

I do not think changing the name is the answer. Maybe ensuring the victim that they won't be harassed or ridiculed by others or peers.

Response by Sgt Timothy Fetterman made Apr 26 at 2016 8:45 AM

2016-04-26T08:45:26-04:00

This is completely useless. How about we teach how to not be a "target" or "victim"? Use your Second Amendment rights!

Response by LTC Robin P. made Apr 26 at 2016 8:58 AM

2016-04-26T08:58:55-04:00

I think taking the word "sexual" out of it would be more helpful. Assault is assault.

Response by COL Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 9:00 AM

2016-04-26T09:00:03-04:00

Throughout DoD, we've actively worked to change "victim" to "survivor" (although "Victim Advocate" didn't change). I think changing the term again would just be confusing and, most likely, have little impact. As others have said, it's the culture that mostly limits reporting, not the terms.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 9:03 AM

2016-04-26T09:03:25-04:00

My perspective on this comes from my civilian day job as a police officer and criminal investigator for a very large agency in Texas. The "victim" is NEVER referred to as a "victim." He or she is a "complainant." That is drilled into your head from the earliest days in the academy and never changes....even our report writing software has that phrasing.

"Target" is used only in the context of an Internal Affairs investigation and refers to the officer being investigated.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 9:41 AM

2016-04-26T09:41:27-04:00

Words are powerful. Victim: a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. Target: a person, object, or place selected as the aim of an attack.
A victim would be someone that others would feel sorry for including the victim themselves. A target would call for a counter attack.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 10:20 AM

2016-04-26T10:20:04-04:00

No, I do not. The barriers to reporting will remain the same - embarrassment, shame, fear of reprisal, etc. And even from the bystander point of view; barriers to act will not be mitigated by changing vernacular.

Response by CW4 Brad Thompson made Apr 26 at 2016 10:21 AM

2016-04-26T10:21:17-04:00

Changing the name or title for the person violated does nothing to further the process of the soldier reporting the crime. Command Climate, and this goes from the bottom up and top down, makes more of an impact than simply reclassifying the victim with a different label. If you have concerns about how to move forward in terms of education and information, USACIDC has information available to assist you. Check with your local CID RA and don't forget to check with your local civilian law enforcement for materials and training concepts.

Response by SSG Richard Reilly made Apr 26 at 2016 10:29 AM

2016-04-26T10:29:15-04:00

CSM I don't think calling the victim whatever has anything to do with reporting. Victims are afraid and sometimes feel ashamed that the event occurred. Then they see other people who report things get in trouble and they aren't aware of why. i.e., A person falsely accuses and then just constantly goes around saying the command screwed them. That causes the stigma that prevents real victims from reporting. All I believe can help is victim witness liaisons, and a command environment that lets people know that you are willing to support real victims.

I also agree with publishing redacted Article 15's in the unit and I personally did a newsletter every month with list of misconduct and the punishment.

Response by CSM David Litteral made Apr 26 at 2016 10:34 AM

2016-04-26T10:34:38-04:00

I think that's really poorly thought out . Where is the legal precedent for 'targeting?' If one person 'targets' another person it doesn't imply that there has been any execution of the act. I went elk hunting and targeted a lot of elk. It doesn't mean I shot any. Victimizing another person clearly indicated that one person violated another.

Response by SCPO Penny Douphinett made Apr 26 at 2016 10:39 AM

2016-04-26T10:39:33-04:00

Having experienced MST (Military Sexual Trauma) during my career, I don't think it matters what you call it. The victim/target/survivor has to trust in her/his chain of command for support before they will report the crime especially if there are no visible injuries. As a senior enlisted, my word was good enough and action was taken immediately by my CO. Unfortunately, we were in a joint service environment and the Army did not feel they could remove the perpetrator from the AOR, forcing me to serve another 4 months with him, with "accomodations" for my safety. This left me feeling like a victim. At other times, I have had to speak up for junior personnel when Command wanted to brush the issue aside. Granted, this was many years ago, I'd like to hope it is better now, but from what I read, I don't really believe it is.

Response by MSgt Roger Hoyle made Apr 26 at 2016 10:46 AM

2016-04-26T10:46:45-04:00

No. Sexual harassment is very important and words won't change anything.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 10:51 AM

2016-04-26T10:51:13-04:00

Eleanor Roosevelt said it best: "No one can make you feel inferior without your permission!" Female or male, I don't believe it'll make much difference until soldier's are willing to stand up and speak out against it knowing it's a crime and the offender must be held accountable. It's all about assertiveness training letting soldier's know that they can stand up speak out and that the chain of command will have their back!

Response by SSG Mike Hagerty made Apr 26 at 2016 11:12 AM

2016-04-26T11:12:59-04:00

Target can be used as a noun or a verb and without further explanation does not confirm whether someone was assaulted, i.e. ...was the target of a sexual assault is not clear without more information.

How about Casualty? Casualty is an unambiguous word that clearly indicates a personal injury was sustained, but without the negative connotations we tend to hang on the word victim. Try to blame a casualty for anything that happened to them and you'll see the difference.

Response by MSgt Juan Garibay made Apr 26 at 2016 11:15 AM

2016-04-26T11:15:06-04:00

I'm not sure if the name will do it. No one wants to be assaulted, male or female, and I think reporting it is the last thing on their mind if it is or was brutal type compared to less severe. What they need is the right counseling, medical attention, and all the support in order to get their mind right. No one ever thinks it would happen to them and improved and refreshed education about the subject can help. I recall the "annual" training and same tired spill about it; it was not as effective as the mind blowing actual occurrence is. If people want to get serious, then the training and education has to live up to that...every case is serious and deserves every bit of attention.

Response by MAJ Byron Oyler made Apr 26 at 2016 11:23 AM

2016-04-26T11:23:09-04:00

Changing verbiage to illicit a higher number of negative things is just looking for a number, not a means to solve a problem. A target is something you are looking at taking action against and a victim one who had that action taken against them.

Response by CSM Richard StCyr made Apr 26 at 2016 11:29 AM

2016-04-26T11:29:04-04:00

Thought provoking post.
I think reporting of incidents depends on the level of trust the Soldier has in the command to take action.
When I hear " target"; I think of the enemy, bridge, soldier, vehicle, aircraft and such. Designating the victim as "Target" may de-humanize the Soldier in minds of the command.

Example: we used to refer to Troops as "bodies", " Send me three Bodies, time now!" In the 80's during the Army of Excellence push, we were dissuaded from using that term because we were de-humanizing the Soldiers and giving them a disposable connotation.

I whole heartedly agree that something needs doing to improve reporting but I'd spend my time focused on leadership awareness and command climate, over verbiage.

Response by SPC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 11:37 AM

2016-04-26T11:37:20-04:00

Simply put no. But! It could be good to use "Target" in harsher crimes and "Victim" in the more mild cases. I think the victim/target will find the word they associate with the most and honestly the rep should pay attention to those key words and address it as subtle as possible.

Response by MSgt Wes Tracy made Apr 26 at 2016 11:59 AM

2016-04-26T11:59:18-04:00

It may make a difference, but if we take the "victim" out of it, would it also make it easier for the perpetrators to live with themselves? A victim-less crime?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 12:12 PM

2016-04-26T12:12:40-04:00

When i think of victim, i think person....when i think of target, i think of qualifying at the range...

Response by MSgt J D McKee made Apr 26 at 2016 12:23 PM

2016-04-26T12:23:16-04:00

Target might be a bad word to use, especially in the military, it also brings negative associations. Someone down the list here said "complainant", I would vote for that.

Response by CMSgt Ernest Chapman, MBA, PMP made Apr 26 at 2016 12:23 PM

2016-04-26T12:23:56-04:00

I think it is more about how the situation is handled by leadership than what is called.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 12:37 PM

2016-04-26T12:37:09-04:00

I don't know how it would affect the reporting process, but I like the change none the less. I've had soldiers who have come to me long after they were raped (civilian side usually, college is notorious for this) and SHARP training would often do them more harm than good. Part of this is because they have to sit through a class and just listened to someone repeat over and over that they're a victim. The word victim comes with the mindset that they can't do anything about it, including going forward and how they approach what happened to them. I know no one cares for resiliency training, but I feel like you need to take a page from the MRT book and bring in an "I'm stronger than this" mindset. Encourage strength rather than make it seem like weakness that this thing happened to them. I think THAT will help bring an increase. Sexual assault is something that really makes a person feel helpless. If you can help take that away and show them they still have power, I think you'll see far more success.

Response by SSgt Jerry DeLaney made Apr 26 at 2016 1:05 PM

2016-04-26T13:05:27-04:00

Back in the '80s at Marine Security Guard school, we were taught that the term "subject" was the generic term recognized in an international court of law. A person is the subject of an investigation. Or, a person is the subject of a crime/violent crime, etc.

Response by Amn Kim Bloodgood made Apr 26 at 2016 1:39 PM

2016-04-26T13:39:37-04:00

Nope. In my opinion it doesn't matter what you call a victim/target. As a victim/target herself it wasn't what I was called but who I had to report it to and the repercussions that I would have had to face for "making trouble". As a victim/target - I say no, but I am only one person who dealt with it all in a different era of the military.

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Apr 26 at 2016 2:31 PM

2016-04-26T14:31:37-04:00

Positively "NOT" ! We have not remedied this issue in the Armed Forces in large because you have (Superior Officers and Enlisted) that are to worried their careers will be tarnished or more specifically "ended". By reporting up the chain that one of their own was "RAPED", it just piss's me off to no end when a career is more important then the handling of this or any other violation of another human being !
When in the hell does this bullshit stop folk's, do people like myself need to come out of retirement to start following through and prosecuting perpetrators who commit these or any other crime involving a fellow soldier, sailor, or airman! In my career tenure as a senior enlisted I never had an issue with ensuring that this wasn't just reported at a command level but all the way to flag level and through the Naval Criminal Investigative Unit.
I never had issue with ending someone's career, especially someone who committed an infraction of the " UCMJ" at any paygrade! I've commented on this type of issue before since I was involved in assisting a fellow female shipmate who had experienced this trauma. An 0-6, E-9, E-7 and her E-6 wanted this to get shoved under the rug so to speak, and end the whole process. The logic from a command stand point was that the E-6 who committed the offense was a married man whit children ?
That's where I became involved to ensure that she wouldn't be looked upon as the one who was at fault for what occurred! End of discussion folks so those of you on active duty "FIX" this so it doesn't continue!!!!!!!!

P.S. Just a bit of information regarding an incident in the current troop assignments in the far east. I saw an article where a female soldier was raped by members of her own squad and burned to death to cover up the incident?

Response by CW3 Stephen Mills made Apr 26 at 2016 2:39 PM

2016-04-26T14:39:11-04:00

Your going to get wrapped up in legal mumbo jumbo. Target can be a person who was not a victim of a crime. A subject can target someone who never becomes a victim. Think of it this way, you can shoot at a target and miss it.

Changing terminology isn't going to change anything. The victim isn't upset because they are listed as a victim on a report somewhere, they are upset because they were sexually assaulted.

To make things worse the military has a completely inadequate sexual assault prevention program that might prevent sexual assaults, but causes many other problems.

Let me give you three stories of rape cases I investigated while in the Army. Complainant one said she was raped. The alleged assailant said it was consensual. Upon further investigation we learned front he complainant they told the subject no, a week earlier but then consented to the actual sexual intercourse when it happened . The complainant left the office screaming she was raped and nobody was helping her because she was told in sexual assault prevention training no means no and that's the end of it.

Complainant two stated she was raped by her date. She stated she told him no on numerous occasions while they were making out. Alleged assailant stated it was consensual. After further investigation the complainant stated she was making out with the assailant who kept trying to go farther and she would tell him no. Each time she told him no he would stop for a while. They would continue making out and he would try again. After a while she got tired of saying no and got "sexually excited" so she let him have sex with her. This individual left the office complaining as well that no means no and she was raped.

Complainant three reported she was raped by a stranger after missing formation. Further investigation revealed she was living off post even though she was restricted to the barracks for drinking underage. According to the complainant she got intoxicated, over slept and missed formation. She told her Commander that she was raped so that she wouldn't get in trouble for missing formation. After the complainant left the office the commander called back raising hell because the complainant told her that we said there was nothing we could do about finding the guy who raped her so we weren't going to do anything.

I'm not giving these examples to say that women lie about being raped, but rather to point out the problems with the training regarding sexual assault prevention and not leave it at no means no and explain morning remorse doesn't equal rape. Further, all complainants need to be treated with respect and all investigations need to be conducted as if a rape had occurred regardless of what our suspicions might be, But when a complaint has been proven to be false action needs to be taken against the individual making the false report. That's a bitter political pill to swallow as their are advocates who claim all reports are real and would crucify anyone prosecution someone who reported rape, regardless of the veracity of the reported rape.

On the other side of the coin we need to vigorously punish actual perpetrators. The idea the victim put themselves in the situation and assumes responsibility somehow has no legal bearing. While there are things I could do to possibly prevent you from assaulting me, I have no responsibility for your illegal actions.

As soldiers we have a responsibility to each other. I think the biggest thing we can do to encourage actual rape victims to come forward is to make sure we are actually our battle buddies keeper and engage when we see something is acting out of the normal. The biggest hurdle to reporting a personal violation crime is social support for the victim. Changing what we call them isn't going to fix this. Being there for them will. Just my two cents.

Response by SSG Clayton Blackwell made Apr 26 at 2016 2:47 PM

2016-04-26T14:47:58-04:00

I don't think focusing on semantical titles changes anything. I investigated sex crimes, crimes against children and ICAC for nearly 11 years, so I believe I have a pretty decent basis for my opinion. Whether or not a true victim reports it or not has much more to do with their upbringing, the circumstances of the individual case, the support systems in place and their knowledge of that support. How you label them will have little to no affect on them.

Response by SSG Jayne Reed made Apr 26 at 2016 2:49 PM

2016-04-26T14:49:36-04:00

Interesting idea. Might work. Worth a try -- something has to be done.

Q

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Apr 26 at 2016 2:59 PM

2016-04-26T14:59:36-04:00

It is past time to move past these semantic games, Remeber the years of mandatory POSH (Prevention Of Sexual Harassment) training? And the result, after the years, man-hours and other investments? Apparently it succeeded brilliantly since we've gone from preventing sexual harassment (POSH) to preventing sexual assault (POSA) which seems to include most of the things covered under POSH; one could almost think that what is driving all this is someones need to have a new bullet on their support form. Tell me, what activities involving sexual harrassment or sexual assault are NOT covered by the UCMJ? I thought all this silliness peaked when LTG Claudia Kennedy accused a male MG of sexually harrassing her—again, how many LTGs have you heard of that have been sexually harassed or assaulted? Another problem is using an Article 32 to investigate these cases. Once I was approached by a young female AG CPT investigating a case of sexual harassment and had little idea of how to proceed; she wanted my advice on how to conduct an investigation (no need to look me up: 31 years experiences a Special Agent of Army Intelligence). If these offenses are as serious has we keep being told they are, then why aren't they referred to CID for action, like ther major crimes.

Response by CW2 Michael Mullikin made Apr 26 at 2016 3:01 PM

2016-04-26T15:01:26-04:00

Victim? Target? Why not make it "alleged hottie" and be done with the word games.

Response by SPC Timothy Reeves made Apr 26 at 2016 3:03 PM

2016-04-26T15:03:32-04:00

Although I believe "target" is a step in the right direction, it still implies passivity and powerlessness on part of the victim. Thus the Mental Health community uses the word "surviver" which implies resilience and strength in the face of adversity.

Response by SPC Wanda Vergara-Yates made Apr 26 at 2016 3:03 PM

2016-04-26T15:03:38-04:00

Possibly. I think that might take the discussion in a positive direction. Plus there is a lot more to be done to encourage men and women to learn about the other gender's perspective on working together, how wording things can affect reactions, and how to demonstrate proper respect so that it is perceived in the way it is intended. I still believe that the military has been consistently ahead of the rest of society in bringing equality out. However, it is crucial to hold everyone responsible for their attitudes and their actions: both men and women. Changing this wording might help facilitate such change. Great question!

Response by PO2 Alfonse VanHese made Apr 26 at 2016 3:41 PM

2016-04-26T15:41:53-04:00

Victim is what the person feels that was assaulted, target sounds like a sporting event. Lets not downplay the assault to a sporting event. Over time the term Target would feel degrading, and "lets go get some target practice down the range" would not be an appropriate thing to say any more. Take a look at the word GAY, it use too mean happy, care free, but now when some one says that I feeling Gay, look at the definition that it is associated with.

Response by SFC David Pope, MBA made Apr 26 at 2016 4:03 PM

2016-04-26T16:03:14-04:00

I have seen various forms of sexual assault in the army over the years. The hardest part is getting commanders to take the necessary steps when it is reported. No matter what term you use, the way commanders are rated is based on how their subordinates perform. If you have a problem with sexual assault in the ranks, it is reflected poorly on that commander. The commander should be praised when they report those cases and punishment is felt out. Instead commanders get repermands for doing what they are supposed to. We need to change they way commands think before we worry too much about terminology. The sad part about our military today is you are more likely to be punished for calling someone a name, than committing sexual assault!

Response by MSgt John Butcher made Apr 26 at 2016 5:18 PM

2016-04-26T17:18:32-04:00

CSM Baldwin I'm not sure it would change the reporting of assaults. The attackee is still going to feel that they somehow provoked or encouraged the attack or that by reporting they're hurting career.

Response by CPT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 26 at 2016 5:55 PM

2016-04-26T17:55:58-04:00

I don't think it matters what you name "it". What matters is educating soldiers on how to report. Even for Senior Leaders we need annual training on restricted and unrestricted reporting. There should be a single, non-committal number soldiers can call (or text) and be given guidance for their situation. The other side is making reporting easier increases false accusations. But an anonymous text line of should I, could I may allow those that have been assaulted better know their options.

Response by PO1 Mark Vignjevic made Apr 26 at 2016 5:58 PM

2016-04-26T17:58:58-04:00

Like changing a word will change human behavior... Changing rape to sexual assault did noting the the amount of people raped. My thoughts are people will still have issue reporting due to the nature of the violation. Anyway you look at it the person is a victim or target or whatever because they did not have the power (will or physical) to stop the incident from occurring. Admitting that you weren't strong enough to stop something from happening is extremely difficult for anyone. On the other had professional victims may not like the word target. My thoughts are changing the advertising for reporting these incidents by changing the nomenclature will not increase the amount of reports. Males will likely still under report and females will likely over report males make up roughly 38% of all sexual assaults and report about 8-15% of the time (7-9% false reporting both male/female). We can at least think positive that this country does punish many of those who do rape, at least best we can, and we do have anti rape/molestation laws. The question remains will changing the term increase reporting? Not likely in my opinion.

Response by COL John Hudson made Apr 26 at 2016 8:16 PM

2016-04-26T20:16:12-04:00

CSM Baldwin: From the IG Desk: Terms are irrelevant. One of the biggest obstacles is lack of initial reporting immediately after the incident. For reasons known only to any victim (gender non-specific) - they choose to remain silent. Burden of proof may become more critical with passage of time, tainting any victim with doubt as to motive once the transgression is at last openly identified. My advice to all service members is to immediately report any aspect of harassment, abuse, or assault (any of these for any reason) to their chain of command without delay. If a member of the CoC IS the problem, then come to the IG, EO, Chaplain, or any other Commander's door. One can do so anonymously if desired, either via letter, email, or phone call. The IG office treats ALL anonymous inquiries as 'real;' proceeding to investigate regardless. Your biggest challenge, CSM Baldwin, is to educate your young service members and junior NCOs as to these policies and encourage them to not be shy in coming forward if ever exposed to such unwanted attention. Be aware that results of IG inquires can also hold someone harmless (as well as referred for disciplinary action to the Commander if warranted). JCH, COL IG (Ret)

Response by CPO Michael Butler made Apr 26 at 2016 10:21 PM

2016-04-26T22:21:27-04:00

It will make no difference what term is used, as long as sexual assault is not taken seriously by the chain of command. It all needs to be investigated to its fullest and not swept under the rug to keep someone's record clean.

Response by MSgt Daniel Harrison made Apr 26 at 2016 10:40 PM

2016-04-26T22:40:31-04:00

It doesn't matter what you call it; Sexual Assault is wrong and should be reported and dealt with.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2016 1:16 AM

2016-04-27T01:16:20-04:00

That's a hard one CSM. Without walking in those shoes, I guess I couldn't say for sure. I can merely speculate that if I was assaulted, my decision to report would have nothing to do with whether I was labeled considered a victim or target. For me the decision to report or not would depend on my decision to let people know. I think I would either try and hide it from everyone, including family and friends, or be brave enough to let it be known. If I could be that brave, it wouldn't matter what I'm labeled because I'd feel like a hero.

Response by SGT Doug Prescott made Apr 27 at 2016 1:55 AM

2016-04-27T01:55:53-04:00

Personally I think target is a better term. Victim points you out to be loser right from the start. As a target you can turn it around.Make the bad guy the target. Grunts want pay back not pity.

Response by SSG Jerry Pitkin made Apr 27 at 2016 2:31 AM

2016-04-27T02:31:24-04:00

Changing the name does nothing. What ever you call it will still invoke the same feelings. Quite trying to pull the wool over our eyes and face the facts/truths, a victim is a target just as a target is a victim. Let's quit wasting time with labels and spend time convicting, then terminating or at the very least castrating the perpetrators. let's do a better job at following true reports and punishing those who falsely report. Openly punish the false reports, because we all know the fact finding creates a stigma and more or less a punishment for the falsely accused.

Response by Sgt Christopher Whelchel made Apr 27 at 2016 2:55 AM

2016-04-27T02:55:44-04:00

I think it starts with training people at a young age that it is okay to come forward if you are the the victim of a sexual assault would go a lot further than changing the label. I have interviewed many victims of sexual assaults and the overwhelming majority believe they could have done something to prevent the sexual assault. This leads to feelings of guilt and embarrassment. The guilt and embarrassment, coupled with the cultural insensitivity towards victims of sexual assault, are reasons why victims fear reporting to authorities.

Response by CWO3 Jeff Metcalf made Apr 27 at 2016 3:00 AM

2016-04-27T03:00:22-04:00

No offense CSM, but semantics never played a role in the sexual assaults my office investigated. We focused on the victim's right to report the crime either in the restricted or unrestricted format. All victims are targets in one form of the other. Regardless of the heinous nature of a particular crime, we should concentrate our efforts on prosecuting crimes in an objective and impartial manner, and be less concerned with "titles". This may sound cold, but unless this Executive Order has changed with caveats unknown to me (which is quite possible), UCMJ Article 137 requires all military members to report their knowledge of the commission of a crime, regardless of participant status (except suspects---5th Amendment protection). I feel promoting a special title for victims of sexual assaults is a slippery slope and invites increased levels of subjectivity. I did some digging around and found a lot of surveys and estimations, but no hard data points to demonstrate year-over-year case clearance and false reporting rates. I believe we've placed a lot of actions in motion to better serve the victims of these crimes, but I also feel we've put the cart in front of the horse in some cases to satisfy demands made by organizations external to the military. In my estimation, we need accurate statistics first and foremost. Facts alone, in my opinion, are the only true avenue which will provide future victims with the confidence necessary to pursue justice for the wrongs committed against them. ~ Secure from soapbox.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Apr 27 at 2016 5:10 AM

2016-04-27T05:10:00-04:00

No; I don't think so. Of the two victim is the better. Your not shooting at a target when you rape; you're forever traumatizing a person's life.

Response by SGT Tim Fridley made Apr 27 at 2016 9:00 AM

2016-04-27T09:00:12-04:00

In my opinion Target would make it less likely for it to be reported. The reason I say this is most go unreported because of fear of retaliation. They most likely already feel like a target so calling them that wouldn't help

Response by CPT Tex Pete made Apr 27 at 2016 10:10 AM

2016-04-27T10:10:51-04:00

That is a silly analysis. Victims don't report because of reprisals. The entire army is led by Field Grade Officers who pride themselves on reprisals. They don't want that power point slide going up with a red mark on it that has a high number of sexual assaults. It makes them look bad to their bosses. So they threaten and mistreat the victims. I filed an IG Complaint for something no where near as serious as a sexual assault and I was humiliated and drummed out of the unit, and my complaint is still pending, and the guy who I filed the complaint against was promoted and sent to the war college. The ARMY has a problem with arrogance of leadership and reprisals. That is where you need to go to fix your problems with reporting.

Response by TSgt Dennis Rozier made Apr 27 at 2016 12:02 PM

2016-04-27T12:02:51-04:00

I don't think so. Additionally, target implies they haven't become a victim yet so it may actually diminish what happened. A term isn't going to make women report this, changing peoples attitudes so they stop blaming the victim, or making excuses for the perpetrator, will.

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 27 at 2016 1:55 PM

2016-04-27T13:55:44-04:00

WOW!! I've always said there's a lot of power in a word and the word victim gives a person the sense that they "let it happen", they weren't smart enough or strong enough to prevent it, there's a lot of shame attached to that word. But what if they were "targets?" Which is a fact btw, they were targeted. So instead of saying "I was a victim of ..." You say "I was their target." ? It puts all the responsibility on the predator. There is immense power in a word. When we went from Barracks to Dorms, Chowhall to Dinning Facility etc...many things changed. Personally I do believe if we teach the word "target" verses victim more people would step to the plate.
To put it simply in my words. If you call yourself a target... it puts the responsibility on the predator. If you call yourself a victim it makes you feel shameful, weak, like you weren't smart enough or strong enough to avoid it. It's a mindset that has prevented many from reporting it.

Response by SSgt Michael Cox made Apr 27 at 2016 2:06 PM

2016-04-27T14:06:01-04:00

Working with MST survivors in my outreach position has taught me that as long as reporting goes through the commander it will never change. MST reporting should be the same as in the civilian world and go through Security Forces and the Hospital only and the commander should never see the report at all.

Response by CPO Cory Cook made Apr 28 at 2016 12:46 PM

2016-04-28T12:46:42-04:00

Social influences (keeping comments to the question). In the civilian world and possibly more so, the military world, stigmas frequently are as damaging to the victim as the actual circumstance (not just sexual assault, but depression, PTSD, etc.). Making meaningful changes in social influence (attitude towards those who are affected) take place very slowly and usually with small incremental steps as there are no On/Off switches in a stressed society.
Changing a job title from "garbage collector" to "sanitation engineer" seemed a bit funny and unnecessary, but in afterthought, garbage collector had accumulated quite a bit of "social garbage" so to speak, maybe it was appropriate - everyday attitude for respect. Sexual assault "victims" were "targets" before they became so, both seem appropriate for print and discussion. Changing the term from "Victim" to "Target" is worth it in making a stronger social influence for respect, a small step.
Yet somehow I do not see any real progress until there are changes. Where do we begin: at home with parents who will teach their young-uns respect, (I will leave here as this will digress).

Response by SPC Alejandro Martinez made Apr 28 at 2016 8:45 PM

2016-04-28T20:45:32-04:00

That's like changing the word rapist to semen donor.

Response by CH (LTC) Jim Kirkendall made May 1 at 2016 12:51 PM

2016-05-01T12:51:29-04:00

Totally different response and reaction from VICTIM to TARGET. I think it would be beneficial.

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made May 2 at 2016 5:52 AM

2016-05-02T05:52:25-04:00

The correct term in the civilian world is survivor. Anything forcible has the potential to lead to more violence and even death.

Response by PV2 Glen Lewis made Oct 6 at 2016 1:53 PM

2016-10-06T13:53:06-04:00

I can't see either being offensive but victim seems to me to be more accurate. One certainly doesn't ask to be raped so I can't understand how they would not be a victim after a target. Not all targets get hit.

Response by PO2 Sybil "TT" I. made Oct 10 at 2016 2:58 AM

2016-10-10T02:58:28-04:00

I'm not sure on that one. I do believe words have power, but it would depend who I was speaking with. If I was speaking to the person who was assaulted, I think "Target" is a more neutral and a safer a term. You know, not as emotionally charged or uncomfortable. If I was questioning the perp, for information, using "Target" would also be more appropriate, because again it's more neutral and not as judgmental. However, if I was the prosecutor in a court room, I'd use both, and specifically the word "Victim" every chance I could get. The word "Victim" implies so much more than "Target" and I think gives a better emotional accounting of what the person is most likely feeling or experiencing as the result from the assault. I'd want the jury to know that, and feel the horror.