Rape and Military Law


Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 09:30:29 -0400
Subject: COMMENT: Rape and Military Law
From:
Dorothy H. Mackey

A dose of reality. Has anyone else seen this? Do you have an opinion? In the most recent REVISED Uniform Code of Miliatry Justice when offenses deal in the area of sex crimes, the military has added disclaimers that do not cover the spouses as victims. For instance under the crime of sodomy.....the crime of sodomy does not pertain to it is the spouse. It goes on like this even under rape, if it's a spouse, forced sex is not considered rape. It is impossible, most States have laws on the books prohibiting this type of behavior EVEN against spouses but not in the military! This is crazy, they already dismiss hundreds of women violated who have followed all their procedures only to continue to humiliate them, hoping we will give up. As if we are to take it like good kids and go away silently.

Dorothy H. Mackey


Date: Thu, 15 Aug 1996 19:13:30 -0400
From: Gene Moser

On 14 Aug Dorothy H. Mackeywrote
>In the most recent REVISED Uniform Code of Miliatry Justice when
>offenses deal in the area of sex crimes, the military has added
>disclaimers that do not cover the spouses as victims. For instance
>under the crime of sodomy.....the crime of sodomy does not pertain to
>it is the spouse. It goes on like this even under rape, if it's a
>spouse, forced sex is not considered rape.

This is what the 1995 UCMJ says on page IV-65:
Article 120 - Rape and carnal knowledge
(a) Any person subject to this chapter who commits an act of sexual intercourse by force and without consent, is guilty of rape and shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.

(b) Any person subject to this chapter who, under circumstances not amounting to rape, commits an act of sexual intercourse with a female not his wife who has not attained the age of sixteen years is guilty of carnal knowledge and shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

>For instance under the crime of sodomy.....the crime of sodomy does
>not pertain to it is the spouse.

Sorry, Dorothy, there is no "crime of sodomy" under the UCMJ. It is "Committing an indecent act" and is very vague. No where does it say that the fact the other person is the wife is an item of defense, mitigation or extunuation.

Now - what about carnal knowledge? That is the same as statutory rape, which is consentual intercourse with a female of"tender" years (below the age of consent). IT CAN ONLY BE CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OR STATUTORY RAPE if the girl IS NOT MARRIED to the male partner!!! She has agreed - she just doesn't "have that right" - unless she is married to her partner.

Now - is there a more recent copy of the UCMJ than 1995? It has a red cover and is bound, not loose leaf.

Finally - where did you find this disinformation?

Gene Moser


Date: Fri, 16 Aug 1996 20:12:43 -0400
From: Dorothy H. Mackey

there is no "crime of sodomy" under the UCMJ. Please note Gene posting fwd gay lover testifies. Sodomy is a charge and I got it out of the UCMJ, and off of internet. Please check it out.

Dorothy H. Mackey


Date: Sat, 17 Aug 1996 22:38:43 -0400
From: Gene Moser

Dorothy,
I believe that I was hasty in my research. However, please specify Article number for sodomy and quote it.

It may be that the comment should be that the UCMJ has two charges for the same "crime".

On the other hand, I stand by my comments on rape and carnal knowledge.

Gene Moser


Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 18:23:18 -0400
From: Val Eads

While we're at it could one of you clear up a question. I have always understood that according to The Book a number of common sexual acts, e.g. oral sex, even between the heterosexual lawful wedded, are criminal acts in the military. Is this true or just a bit of civilian folklore? If true, has a straight soldier ever been prosecuted for such an offense? I have been told that straight men have been prosecuted in Georgia under the same Georgia statute that went to the Supreme Court when the provisions were applied to gay men (Hardwick), but I am curious to know if this is indeed true. Just prurient interest.

Val Eads


Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 07:51:27 -0400
From: Gene Moser

Hey, Minerva folks
Val wrote:
>according to The Book a number of common sexual acts, e.g.
>oral sex, even between the heterosexual lawful wedded, are criminal acts

This is true of more than the military.

The sodomy laws are normally so loosely written that the only two things that heterosexuals may legally do are kiss (with lips on lips) and have coitus.

Back before my wife and I were married, every time we stepped into our apartment we were breaking the law, as we were in an apartment and there was not a third party present.

Most states still have fornication laws and Idaho recently enforced it on an unmarried teenager (she'd had a baby and try as they might, they could find no shepherds, angels or wise men.)

So it's not just the military. All those things you read about in THE JOY OF SEX could put you behind bars for ten or so years.

Gene Moser


Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:26:59 -0400
From: Dorothy H. Mackey

It is true, oral sex, actually any orifice sex other then "traditional sex" is a charge that can and has been prosecuted in the military. It falls under the sodomy law. If you need I'll get you the code number.


Date: Mon, 19 Aug 1996 19:27:03 -0400
From: Dorothy H. Mackey

To whom inquired, UCMJ 1994

Article 125 ---Sodomy
Text

     "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural
     carnal copulation with another person of same or opposite sex or with
     an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is
     sufficient to complete the offense."

Does this help.

Dorothy H. Mackey


Date: Tue, 20 Aug 1996 09:10:11 -0400
From: Gene Moser

Dorothy -
first - did I get it right that you are leaving?
Sorry to hear that - hope it won't be long.

second - you wrote "(a) Any person subject to this chapter who engages in unnatural carnal copulation with another person of same or opposite sex or with an animal is guilty of sodomy. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete the offense."

I see nothing about "it's not in effect if the participants are married" . - which is my point.

Please see also Article 134.

The military does plenty of things wrong. Let's key on them (like what is "unnatural") and not snipe with blanks.

Gene Moser

Return to H-MINERVA Home Page.


[an error occurred while processing this directive]