Author Topic: Operation HONOUR discussion  (Read 88517 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 68,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,156
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #25 on: June 29, 2019, 19:43:43 »
Reference: Operation HONOUR

If our CAF is truely equal...this charge sadly shines a hole.

DND News Release

Sorry, please clarify. I don’t understand the context/intent of “...if truly equal...shines a hole.”

I read that a female mbr is facing charges for contraventions relating to Op HONOUR and drunkenness.

I’ve personally witnessed females sexually harassing, and worse, their male counterparts. While the percentage (of reported and otherwise) incidents with females being the aggressors are decidedly fewer, it indeed happens and they should be held to account also. I’m not sure what I’m missing here...
« Last Edit: June 29, 2019, 19:47:20 by BeyondTheNow »
~ "Don't do the dumb." ~

Offline kratz

    Summer is here...and more rain.

  • Float, Move, Fight
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 265,578
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,348
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #26 on: June 29, 2019, 19:52:22 »
 BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.

Quote from: Pipe *General Call*
"Tanning Stations on the flight deck"


Remember, this site is unofficial and privately owned. The site benefits from the presence of current members willing to answer questions.

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 68,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,156
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #27 on: June 29, 2019, 20:05:58 »
BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.

No honestly, I thought I was completely missing something. I wasn’t intending “to call anyone out”...

But yea, I think it’s important to know that females are being held responsible for unacceptable behaviour also.
~ "Don't do the dumb." ~

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,621
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #28 on: July 01, 2019, 21:26:13 »
BeyondTheNow,

No worries for calling me out.

Op HONOUR's official statistics ect... have been skewed to represent a one-sided narrative.

To hear of a "rare" female charge really is news.
What stats, exactly, do you think are being skewed to present a "one-sided narrative"?

Offline exCAFguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 338
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #29 on: July 01, 2019, 22:02:56 »
What stats, exactly, do you think are being skewed to present a "one-sided narrative"?

I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 249,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,893
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #30 on: July 02, 2019, 01:10:01 »
I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....

And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline exCAFguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 338
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #31 on: July 02, 2019, 12:21:48 »
And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?

Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.

Online Haggis

  • "There ain't no hat badge on a helmet!"
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 67,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,807
  • "Oh, what a glorious sight, Warm-reekin, rich!"
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #32 on: July 02, 2019, 12:27:16 »
Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.

Ask VAdm Norman how that political process works.
Train like your life depends on it.  Some day, it may.

Offline cld617

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 132
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #33 on: July 02, 2019, 14:17:06 »
And the real deterrent to criminal activity, since antiquity, is a conviction that can stand up to any appeal process, right?

I would say no, as we already know that increasing the severity of punishment has little to no effect to act successfully as a deterrent. The risk of consequence is effective in a comparison between potential consequence and none, but increasing the likelihood of that consequence a marginal amount is no different than increasing the length of a prison sentence on crime.

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,621
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #34 on: July 02, 2019, 14:39:09 »
I was an MP before and after the implementation of OP Honour.  I can say with 100% certainty that post OP Honour, charges were laid on a LOT of files that would not of even been investigated pre.

Wanna guess how many of those charges resulted in convictions?

I’m not saying there’s a “narrative” but as a senior member of the branch you know good and well that “stats” are definitely up since OP Honour came to be.....convictions on the other hand.....
Charging someone for the sake of optics with no prospect of conviction isn’t exactly an effective solution either.
It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Of course we are investigating things that wouldn't have been investigated before, that tends to happen when our boss issues direction that ALL sexual assault complaints will be fully investigated. That direction predates Op HONOUR by the way... The increase in files is also a result of increased awareness at all levels of the need to actually report sexual assaults when they are disclosed and, hopefully, by an increase in the confidence of the victims that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly instead of being swept under the rug. It stands to reason that as a result of that, more charges are being laid because like it or not, there had been a tendency in the past for unqualified people at the lower levels to make off the cuff decisions on what warranted an investigation or not simply based on their initial perception of the information being provided by the complainant.

Unlike you, I don't believe the conviction rate has had any perceptible change as a result of the charges being laid lacking substance. I also don't think there has been an overly large increase in the number of charges being laid and taken to Courts Martial; if there was, the RMP and Military Judges would be a hell of a lot busier than they are when you take into account the number of sexual assault files that are done on a yearly basis.

But in any case, this still doesn't speak to what stats are supposedly being skewed to provide a one sided narrative based off of a news story about a female service member being charged.

Offline Brihard

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 233,825
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,742
  • Non-Electric Pop-Up Target
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #35 on: July 02, 2019, 15:05:24 »
It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Question, do MPs have to get charge approval from a prosecutor? I know within my organization we ourselves do charge- or more properly, our court liaison officer - another cop - swears the information that signifies the laying of the charge. But crown generally never sees it (on routine criminal files) before a charge is laid. It's different in B.C., but in much of the country we do charge, and generally it's understood that you aren't going to lay a charge unless the file stands a reasonable chance to the best of your / your supervisor's estimation.
Pacificsm is doctrine fostered by a delusional minority and by the media, which holds forth the proposition it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,621
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #36 on: July 02, 2019, 15:15:06 »
Question, do MPs have to get charge approval from a prosecutor? I know within my organization we ourselves do charge- or more properly, our court liaison officer - another cop - swears the information that signifies the laying of the charge. But crown generally never sees it (on routine criminal files) before a charge is laid. It's different in B.C., but in much of the country we do charge, and generally it's understood that you aren't going to lay a charge unless the file stands a reasonable chance to the best of your / your supervisor's estimation.
Errrffff...that depends is the simple answer, lol.

For CSD offences, the only MP authorized to lay charges are those posted to CFNIS, and those are reviewed by RMP prior to them being laid I believe. The rest have to send the report to the member's chain of command and cross their fingers... In some cases, those reports are reviewed by a run of the mill AJAG member prior to being sent to the unit in an effort to increase the likelihood of a charge actually being laid by having a pre-emptive, albeit informal, pre-charge screening done to try to make sure nothing was missed.

For Criminal Code charges downtown, it depends on the province, just as with RCMP.

Offline exCAFguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 338
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #37 on: July 02, 2019, 16:15:48 »
It isn't our job to decide to lay charges based on what has a reasonable prospect of conviction or not, the decision to prosecute test lies with the prosecutor, not the police. Your statements do a disservice to the folks out there who are doing these investigations on a daily basis by implying they are laying charges simply to drive up stats.

Of course we are investigating things that wouldn't have been investigated before, that tends to happen when our boss issues direction that ALL sexual assault complaints will be fully investigated. That direction predates Op HONOUR by the way... The increase in files is also a result of increased awareness at all levels of the need to actually report sexual assaults when they are disclosed and, hopefully, by an increase in the confidence of the victims that their complaints will be investigated thoroughly instead of being swept under the rug. It stands to reason that as a result of that, more charges are being laid because like it or not, there had been a tendency in the past for unqualified people at the lower levels to make off the cuff decisions on what warranted an investigation or not simply based on their initial perception of the information being provided by the complainant.

Unlike you, I don't believe the conviction rate has had any perceptible change as a result of the charges being laid lacking substance. I also don't think there has been an overly large increase in the number of charges being laid and taken to Courts Martial; if there was, the RMP and Military Judges would be a hell of a lot busier than they are when you take into account the number of sexual assault files that are done on a yearly basis.

But in any case, this still doesn't speak to what stats are supposedly being skewed to provide a one sided narrative based off of a news story about a female service member being charged.

To answer the stats question....I’d argue the direction from Delaney that no sexual assault files are ever to be classed as “unfounded” in SAMPIS even if they were unfounded would be an example...

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,621
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #38 on: July 02, 2019, 17:09:59 »
To answer the stats question....I’d argue the direction from Delaney that no sexual assault files are ever to be classed as “unfounded” in SAMPIS even if they were unfounded would be an example...
I don't recall direction prohibiting the use of unfounded WRT sexual assault files, I do recall the direction that the default is to be that the complaint is founded.  If you look at CCJS, that is fully in line with their definition:
Quote
An incident is founded if, after police investigation, it has been determined that the reported offence did occur or was attempted (even if the charged/suspect chargeable (CSC) is unknown) or there is no credible evidence to confirm that the reported incident did not take place (my emphasis). This includes third party reports that fit these criteria.

In other words, even for non-sexual assaults, we "believe" the person reporting the incident and work from the point of view it occurred unless we can conclusively prove it didn't. As such, the use of the unfounded flag should be pretty rare, unless you believe people are in the habit of making false reports on anything and everything.

Let's be honest, SAMPIS is a train wreck WRT CCJS coding and way too much stuff is/was being improperly cleared and flagged as "Unfounded" as the default, including when charges have been laid/recommended because a lot of supervisors don't really seem to know what they are supposed to be doing to properly clear a file.

Offline exCAFguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 338
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #39 on: July 02, 2019, 17:18:41 »
I don't recall direction prohibiting the use of unfounded WRT sexual assault files, I do recall the direction that the default is to be that the complaint is founded.  If you look at CCJS, that is fully in line with their definition:
In other words, even for non-sexual assaults, we "believe" the person reporting the incident and work from the point of view it occurred unless we can conclusively prove it didn't. As such, the use of the unfounded flag should be pretty rare, unless you believe people are in the habit of making false reports on anything and everything.

Let's be honest, SAMPIS is a train wreck WRT CCJS coding and way too much stuff is/was being improperly cleared and flagged as "Unfounded" as the default, including when charges have been laid/recommended because a lot of supervisors don't really seem to know what they are supposed to be doing to properly clear a file.

I completely agree that SAMPIS can be a disaster wrt to that.  Having said that, the direction my office received “from the PM” was any and all sexual misconduct related files SHALL not be classed as unfounded for ANY reason.

One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.

Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.

Offline Humphrey Bogart

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 119,889
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,209
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #40 on: July 02, 2019, 17:22:07 »
Interesting discussion gentlemen, I don't doubt for a second that the Military Police have been pressured to place increased effort and resources on Op HONOUR.  That shouldn't really be unexpected as the same things happens in other domains of Law Enforcement all the time.  9/11 caused the repurposing of law enforcement assets towards "Terrorism" from other important files like "Organized Crime" which leaves a void elsewhere.  I don't really think we should be getting upset with Police Officers for this, they are just the ones at the coal face who have to carry out the orders. 

I'm happy we have Police Forces that take crimes seriously and investigate them, it's what happens after they investigate potential crimes and hand the file over to the "Justice" system that it becomes a gong show that is just all around crappy for the people who get investigated, whether they are guilty or not.  The criminal justice system is just terrible in this country, by criminal justice system, I don't mean police either, I'm really talking about the Courts.  It's a complete money racket and how oppressive it can be is 100% dependent on how much money a person has at their disposal.

I think a lot of anger that is directed at Police Forces in this country should really be directed at the Judiciary, Lawyers and Politicians who administer the system and create bad laws and policy that the Police have to enforce.  The laws we have are really designed for the 1-2% of the population that are sociopaths and/or psychopaths that won't change no matter what.  Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that get caught up in this system for a variety of reasons that probably shouldn't be there. 


Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 358
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #41 on: July 02, 2019, 17:58:57 »
One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.

Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.

And in that file the complainant was charged with public mischief?  If not, why not?  Curious to know...

Offline garb811

  • MP/MPO Question Answerer
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 86,390
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,621
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #42 on: July 02, 2019, 18:15:07 »
I completely agree that SAMPIS can be a disaster wrt to that.  Having said that, the direction my office received “from the PM” was any and all sexual misconduct related files SHALL not be classed as unfounded for ANY reason.

One particular file the complainant admitted they lied about the entire incident after doing an investigation and I was still directed that the complaint will not go as unfounded based on his order.

Whether that order was misconstrued by the office Capt......that I don’t know.
Seen. I obviously can't speak to what your Capt was told but it certainly wouldn't be the first time the telephone game happened with unintended consequences resulting.

HB: This isn't the first time there has been a "surge" with regard to sexual assault files, another one happened in the late 90s when the first Macleans article came out. Given that was pre-SAMPIS and everything was hard copy, I have no doubt some complaints are being re-investigated for the 2nd, possibly 3rd, time simply because there wasn't an efficient transfer of historical files into SAMPIS and there is no effective way the old files to be double checked without a lot of effort...

You're absolutely correct in the impact this has WRT available money. That's why in some cases, I think the pre-charge screening built into places like BC is a good thing. Like Brihard said, with the Crown being the authority for Charges, it really reduces the likelihood of charges being laid that won't go to trial. The costs are dramatic, even getting a half-way decent lawyer is likely going to cost $3-5,000 for the initial retainer and that doesn't last long at $3-400 an hour. That's one of the "benefits" of the current policy of primacy of the military justice system; at least a military member who has been charged can obtain free representation from DCS.

Offline exCAFguy

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 5,535
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 338
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #43 on: July 02, 2019, 19:10:13 »
And in that file the complainant was charged with public mischief?  If not, why not?  Curious to know...

Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.

I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 299,006
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,981
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #44 on: July 02, 2019, 19:55:35 »
Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.

I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.

Lol

I believe it.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline daftandbarmy

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 249,320
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 13,893
  • The Older I Get, The Better I Was
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #45 on: July 03, 2019, 01:06:26 »
Lol

I believe it.

This NY Times article seems to back that approach i.e., better to think twice about charging someone for lying:

When Sexual Assault Victims Are Charged With Lying

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/24/opinion/sunday/sexual-assault-victims-lying.html
"The most important qualification of a soldier is fortitude under fatigue and privation. Courage is only second; hardship, poverty and want are the best school for a soldier." Napoleon

Offline BeyondTheNow

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 68,345
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,156
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #46 on: July 03, 2019, 07:29:31 »
Nope....I wasn’t allowed to.

I was basically told that if we charge people for lying...it will dissuade truthful victims from coming forward.

Quote
Lol

I believe it.

This may seem a backwards line of thinking, but there’s truth to it...unfortunately.

I don’t in any way condone someone being a shithead and making stuff up to get attention, or to impart distress on another for whatever justified reasoning they’ve managed to create. But the fact remains that practically the number one reason victims refrain from coming forward/placing a formal complaint is because they’re afraid they won’t be believed. And while there are instances of people making stuff up—which again, is absolutely disgusting—there are far MORE instances of those being raked over the coals, having their reputations (personal and professional) destroyed, and being accused of lying for telling their stories.

Until such time as our environment, both business and non, becomes a place where people (and I stress *people*...this isn’t strictly a male or female-only issue) feel safe to report such incidences, and where consequences for such behaviour match the offence, then there’s going to be severe issues while ironing out how best to let people know they’re able to come forward.

~ "Don't do the dumb." ~

Offline Jarnhamar

  • Army.ca Legend
  • *****
  • 299,006
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10,981
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #47 on: July 03, 2019, 10:08:08 »
This may seem a backwards line of thinking, but there’s truth to it...unfortunately.



There's truth to it for sure. Most of us will never understand the situation and suffering victims endure being assaulted and then the circus of coming forward.

At the same time though its accepting trading one victim for another. It's treating an accused service member of being guilty until proven innocent.

It there isn't a lot of sympathy out there for victims, I think there may be less sympathy for falsely accused victims.

Shitty situation either way. The CAF though I'd say is obsessed with stats and looking good in the media- which causes even more problems.
There are no wolves on Fenris

Offline QV

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,645
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 358
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #48 on: July 03, 2019, 10:54:29 »
When it is clear and undisputed a complainant attempted to use the police and legal system to bring down the "subject", to cause personal and reputational injury, to possibly see this person lose liberty or worse, it is abhorrent this person is not properly charged with public mischief.  On the off chance some person, somewhere, may be discourage, to report. 

Offline Remius

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 116,500
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 3,473
Re: Operation HONOUR discussion
« Reply #49 on: July 03, 2019, 11:05:46 »
When it is clear and undisputed a complainant attempted to use the police and legal system to bring down the "subject", to cause personal and reputational injury, to possibly see this person lose liberty or worse, it is abhorrent this person is not properly charged with public mischief.  On the off chance some person, somewhere, may be discourage, to report.

The problem I think as those examples seem to show, is that it may seem clear and undisputed when in fact it isn't.  all the normal signs of lying and misleading may seem to be present.  It is a case of police unlearning what they learned when it comes to cases like this.   
Optio