Here is the FedReg announcement for the latest JPP meeting on Mar. 13, 2015 from 9 am to 5 pm. The focus of this meeting is to consider “compensation and restitution for victims of offenses under the UCMJ, and develop recommendations on expanding such compensation and restitution.”  Though not stated in the summary, the agenda makes clear that the focus is on restitution and compensation for sexual assault victims.  Below is the agenda (I am guessing somewhere in there OFL is speaking):

  • 8:30 a.m. – 9:00 a.m. Administrative Session (41 CFR 102-3.160, 3 not subject to notice & open meeting requirements)
  • 9:00 a.m. – 10:00 a.m. DoD Overview of Compensation and Restitution (public meeting begins)
    • Speakers: Department of Defense subject matter experts
  • 10:00 a.m. – 11:00 a.m. Economic Needs of Sexual Assault Victims and Barriers to Compensation
    • Speakers: Law school professors with recent scholarship on restitution and compensation for victims of sexual assault crimes
  • 11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. State Compensation Programs: History, Purposes, and Use by Military/Dependent Victims
    • Speakers: Representatives from national and state crime victim compensation associations
  • 12:15 p.m. – 1:00 p.m. Lunch
  • 1:00 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. How Victims Can Obtain Restitution or Compensation for Crimes Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice
    • Speakers: Military Services’ subject matter experts
  • 2:15 p.m. – 4:45 p.m. Perspectives on Compensation and Restitution for Sexual Assault Victims
    • Speakers: Civilian and military practitioners, representatives from victim advocacy organizations
  • 4:45 p.m. – 5:00 p.m. Public Comment

6 Responses to “Judicial Proceedings Panel Meeting on Mar. 13, 2015”

  1. Paco says:

    The 1:00 p.m. – 2:15 p.m. session should be changed to: “How to Create Motive to Fabricate Evidence for Victims of Crimes Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice”

  2. RY says:

    in WWII, we had lots of false rape allegations because it carried the death penalty and it was an easy way for foreign nationals to take soldiers away from the battlefield without firing a bullet. Many were wrongly convicted because commanders pressured results to show foreigners we were tough and intolerant of these crimes. This gave birth to Art 37. Fast forward 70 years and it’s not foreign nationals we need to worry about making false claims, we want to incentivize allegations monetarily. So if I make a report, I now get my own team of advocates, a victims counsel, transfer to base of preference, become nearly untouchable for minor indiscretions because I can argue retaliation and kill the careers of my leadership quite easily and with Congress in my corner, I won’t be challenged on my story by investigators, I can elect not to testify or cooperate before trial, I can already claim military sexual trauma even if there is no conviction or the case is dropped but now I can also count on getting restitution of other compensation?  What’s the down side?  And if I happy to be committing adultery at the time, how is claiming rape not a better alternative with all of these incentives?

  3. Advocaat says:

    First, I hope opposing viewpoints will be presented at the meeting and that the defense bar (military and civilian) shows up en masse.  Second, I don’t have a problem with anyone receiving medical care and counseling services for any type of trauma.  Restitution from a convicted perpetrator doesn’t bother me either b/c such actions are rooted in tort and they involve individual liability.  I do not, however, support broad “compensation” from the government for any crime victim absent proof the state was responsible for the offense.  The problem with DoD is the mistaken belief that throwing enough money at any problem will solve it, and we already live in a world where the mere allegation of sexual assault results in relaxed evidentiary standards when determining a VA disability rating:

  4. k fischer says:

    So, can civilian SVC’s take sexual assault victim clients on a contingency fee basis?   Hopefully, they haven’t limited fees to 25% like the did with the FTCA.  Gotta get my ad in the Army Times:Dial Kyle!   Then again, my hypocrisy has its limits.

  5. stewie says:

    I’m interested in seeing the discussion that flows from the signing of the Army Directive concerning Article 32s.

  6. afjagcapt says:

    stewie, is the Directive publicly available somewhere? Always curious to compare implementation guidance cross-service…