• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Operation HONOUR discussion

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,453
Points
1,360
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. 

 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
721
Points
1,010
exCAFguy said:
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...
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
exCAFguy said:
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.
 

RCDtpr

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
QV said:
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.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,269
Points
1,060
exCAFguy said:
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.
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,435
Points
1,160
Jarnhamar said:
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
 

BeyondTheNow

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Mentor
Reaction score
6
Points
530
exCAFguy said:
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.

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.

 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,269
Points
1,060
BeyondTheNow said:
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.
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
721
Points
1,010
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. 
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
3,406
Points
1,090
QV said:
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.   
 

QV

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
721
Points
1,010
When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief. 
 

garb811

Army.ca Veteran
Staff member
Directing Staff
Reaction score
8
Points
530
QV said:
When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.
Sure, if when the confession was made the charters and cautions have been read and the video tape is running with the monitor paying attention and making fulsome and accurate notes... Not a show stopper if that wasn't the case but the hill you need to climb to prove that charge has now turned into a cliff face when she realizes the jeopardy she is suddenly in and refuses to repeat it once all of that is in place.
 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
4,415
Points
1,110
QV said:
When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.

Did the interviewing officer immediately tell the person to stop, and caution them? The instant such an admission is made, any reasonable officer will now suspect that the person has committed an offense, and the nature of the interview has changed. That doesn't meant he initial unsolicited admission is inadmissible, but it does mean that the individual's jeopardy has changed radically, and they need to be cautioned so as to unequivocally understand their rights not to say anything further and the problems they face.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,788
Points
1,060
exCAFguy said:
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.

Isn't this 'selective justice' or whatever the term is?  One person is accused of committing some type of offence and is investigated.  The person who makes the false accusation and lied to the police/authorities then admits "It was all a lie"...but with no consequences.

There is something else wrong with the system if we are letting people off the hook for things like this.  If you broke your right leg, would you go to hospital to get it in a cast etc?  Or would you break your other leg...

 

RCDtpr

Full Member
Reaction score
1
Points
0
Brihard said:
Did the interviewing officer immediately tell the person to stop, and caution them? The instant such an admission is made, any reasonable officer will now suspect that the person has committed an offense, and the nature of the interview has changed. That doesn't meant he initial unsolicited admission is inadmissible, but it does mean that the individual's jeopardy has changed radically, and they need to be cautioned so as to unequivocally understand their rights not to say anything further and the problems they face.

In my office at that point the invest would be concluded and that’s that.  I once asked if I could at least send it to JAG for their opinion on moving forward for public mischief and got yelled at.

Edit....this reply was meant for Eye in the Sky however I clicked Brihard by mistake.  Not tech savvy enough to fix it lol
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,788
Points
1,060
This is where I think the "victim" has become the mbr originally thought to be "the accused".  Where is the concern for that individual?  Where are their rights to justice?  ???
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
10,435
Points
1,160
QV said:
When the complainant admits to making it all up for revenge, I feel there is a solid case for public mischief.

I have seen two occasions when this happened. In each case the reputational damage to the accused was unrecoverable, despite the lies being exposed, which was the greatest tragedy.

I’m not sure what the best approach might be, but am pretty sure that slamming people into immediate house arrest, or the equivalent, based on an as yet unproven allegation is probably not the way to go.
 

Jarnhamar

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
3,269
Points
1,060
Severe punishment (career ending perhaps?) handed down to Canadian Forces officer who repeatedly grabbed the genitals of colleagues.

I'm guessing the guilty party making the statement "Oh, I know you like it," had a hand to play in the judges decision.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/fondling-of-frigate-mates-earns-navy-officer-a-reprimand-346626/
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
4,453
Points
1,360
Jarnhamar said:
Severe punishment (career ending perhaps?) handed down to Canadian Forces officer who repeatedly grabbed the genitals of colleagues.

I'm guessing the guilty party making the statement "Oh, I know you like it," had a hand to play in the judges decision.

https://www.thechronicleherald.ca/news/halifax/fondling-of-frigate-mates-earns-navy-officer-a-reprimand-346626/

Meanwhile in Belgium:

Belgian soldiers and police ‘held orgy’ during Brussels lockdown
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/30/belgian-soldiers-police-held-orgy-during-brussels-lockdown

:rofl:

Our world today is a funny mix of Roman Decadence and Victorian Morality



 

Navy_Pete

Army.ca Veteran
Subscriber
Reaction score
1,377
Points
1,040
Maybe will be clearer when the actual CM decision is out in a few months, but any reason why something like this couldn't have had sexual assault as the primary, with the behaving in a disgraceful manner as an alternate? Understand there is discretion for the prosecutor but not really clear why this wouldn't meet the elements of the charge.

Does it have to be more sustained or not through clothes or something?  From looking at other CMs seems to be a range of similar behaviour that may or may not hit the threshold.
 
Top