US Military and Sex Offenders

Really interesting application of in-class discussion...

Last week we all spoke about the pros and cons, or at least the privacy interests affected by, creating a list of registered sex offenders that would make their names and home addresses more publicly accessible. Canada has not yet passed any such legislation, but we know that such a thing exists in the United States. On that note, the US creates distinction between the privacy interests of the accused civilian sex offenders and those in an authoritative military position.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory/military-sexual-assault-bill-heads-senate-vote-22795087?utm_source=Daily+Skimm&utm_campaign=730e5357ab-daily_skimm&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_74efee6205-730e5357ab-24227589

Summary: The US Senate blocked a change to legislation that would have stripped commanders of their military authority to prosecute rapes and various other crimes. The proposed bill called for reform by instead bringing these charges before a military courts-martial, to be handled by military trial lawyers. This which would have allowed the charges to be decided upon in a manner that is independent of the military chain on command

Context: This is obviously taking place in the US, which means that it isn’t directly applicable to Canadian law. However, this is still an interesting question about the Canadian theme of balancing privacy interests against widespread social impact or social good.

Relevance to privacy: Essentially, individuals involved in the military who are convicted of some sexual offence are still subject to the same sex-registry rules as normal offenders. However, the process by which charges are laid against them is markedly different, and there is speculation that this has a negative effect on how many charges are actually brought forward. In dealing with these issues internally, privacy interests of individuals in a military position are supposedly protected from the consequence of losing their authority upon accusation, since if these issues are dealt with in an independent court, the case would be more publicly-available and aspersions could be cast on their character regardless of whether they are convicted. Authority and respect are arguably essential to their position in the military.

The main problem: Stricter privacy interests seem to be afforded to these military authorities than a civilian sex offender (at least until conviction, after which they would indeed added to the sex offender registry like any other convicted sex offender, and be stripped of their military standing). More worrisome is that the victims of these kinds of assaults are often reluctant to bring these claims forward because the chain of command is the very thing that has led to the violation of their trust. Therefore, the question hinges in the balance between the privacy interests of accused military authorities (by resorting to the military chain of command to hear claims of sexual assaults, rather than an external system) against the security of the supposed victims 

Questions to consider: When safety/security rights are being weighed against the privacy interests of others, should it matter whether the latter category is in a position of authority that is considered important for the safety of society in general? Is it ‘fair’ to provide these military authorities with greater initial privacy interests on the basis that their authority is an important constituent for continued public safety?