Sexual Assault prosecution to remain with Commanders.

As much as I tend to side with tradition, this is not one of those areas. &nbsp;The fact of the matter is that what has been in place dealing with Sexual Assault has not been working for decades. &nbsp;Part of the problem with Commanders retaining authority to prosecute military sexual assault cases is that it leaves too much room for abuse and neglect. &nbsp;First off, if a commander is involved or has knowledge of a sexual assault, then that commander could use command influence to sweep it under the rug. &nbsp;I know this isn't always the case, but it is a possibility.<div><br></div><div>Second, as the Installation Victim Advocate, I have been to many trials for military sexual assault. &nbsp;In every single one of those, the defense has used the "outstanding record" of the service member to minimize the crime they committed. &nbsp;And they were right, some of these rapists are among the best at their jobs, are stellar performers at work, and have a long list of military achievements. &nbsp;It kills me for that to be the defense though, because what a person does professionally and personally are two completely different things. &nbsp;If that same individual was a stellar performer at work but was a habitual heroin user at night, would we have the same tolerance? &nbsp;With commanders retaining UCMJ authority over sex offenders, it leaves the door wide open for these perpetrators to slip through because they are outstanding at their job, or such a nice person at work that it is unthinkable to believe they would rape someone...</div><div><br></div><div>My bottom line is that for sexual assault and other serious crime, the UCMJ authority should lie outside the command. &nbsp;Commanders are not trained lawyers, investigators, or prosecutors. &nbsp;They should leave that up to the professionals.</div>