Imagine you are a soldier. You are sexually assaulted by one of your comrades and are able to bring the issue before a military court. The person who attacked you, though, has never committed any sort of offense before. He uses his impeccable record in his defense, as justification for why he should not be punished. And, much to your horror, it works. He gets away scot-free.

Since World War I, military tribunals and courts recognized the "good soldier defense." It is, or was, a commonly accepted and used defense. The somewhat oxymoronically named legal precedent allowed for soldiers to cite their lack of past discipline and military record as a defense before the court. This testimony was accepted as legitimate evidence in the same category as DNA or eyewitness testimony. Although, in theory, the "good soldier defense" could be used in any court-martial situation, overwhelmingly it was used during cases of sexual assault, as a way to both prevent the victim from getting justice and keep the attacker in good standing.

The "good soldier defense" protects high-ranking officers at a much higher rate than other soldiers, the very officers to whom sexual assault victims often have to report. By and large high-ranking officers are male, and these officers are the ones who are most likely to assault fellow soldiers in the first place.
The United States Senate voted 97-0 this week on a military funding bill that included an amendment to prohibit the "good solider defense" from being used in court-martials or legal proceedings. The bill also gives new legal protections to victims and works to end retaliation within the ranks against those who report sexual assault. It's momentous that the Senate, a body that has often proven itself unable to simply keep the government from shutting down, was able to pass a major overhaul of military law, and with no dissent. Clearly, if both political parties in the Senate can agree on working to get rid of the "good soldier defense," then it must be truly abhorrent. 

I am, of course, horrified that such a law was still on the books, but I cannot say I am especially surprised. Even though women can now hold any combat position in the military, America's armed forces are still very reminiscent of a boys' club. Leadership positions are overwhelmingly held by men. Commanders, like Sergeant Major Gene McKinney, one of the highest ranking officers to be accused of sexual assault, have used the "good soldier defense" and have been completely acquitted, even if a number of victims testified otherwise. 

This repeal in the Senate is a good start, but it is not enough. Speaker John Boehner has yet to state if he will encourage the appropriate committees to have this bill go up for a vote in the House of Representatives, even though Politico and Slate, among other news outlets, have predicted that the bill will easily pass. Without a vote from the House, the bill is dead. This needs to be dealt with, and unless the House addresses this topic directly, nothing will change. House Republicans have nothing to lose and everything to gain from passing this piece of legislation. After all, the Republican Party has struggled to attract female voters, with women going for President Barack Obama over former Governor Mitt Romney by nearly 10 points in 2012, and passing a bill to help female soldiers would certainly be a boon for them

While it is promising that the Senate has repealed the "good soldier defense," there are other pressing bills on the issue of military sexual assault that have been overlooked. Kirsten Gillibrand, the junior senator from New York and a champion of the issue, has been working to move sexual assault cases from the chain of command to civilian courts through a measure of reforms including having military lawyers, not unit commanders, in charge of prosecuting or denying charges. Military officials staunchly oppose this bill, the Military Justice Improvement Act, as they think it would strip officers of their authority and hurt unit cohesion by bringing civilians into military proceedings. I personally do not think there is any validity in this argument against MJIA, since officers and the military have been unable to adequately address the problem. Unfortunately, in the latest Senate vote, the bill was five votes short of the 60 needed to quorum and failed. Gillibrand said she would bring her bill up for a vote again, although it is unclear if it will pass on a second attempt.

The "good solider defense" might have been good for the troops who used it to get off without punishment, but I hope the majority of Americans would be disgusted if such a defense was allowed in civilian courts. Some leaders in the military make the argument that civilian interference hurts cohesion and prestige, but I disagree. I respect the men and women who serve to protect the United States, but I don't necessarily respect how the military deals with its flaws. And I certainly don't respect an institution that allows sexual assault criminals to get away with their crimes. 

If the Pentagon makes serious changes to the way it handles sexual assault, while working with Congress, the military will have prestige. Until then, we must do everything we can to help the victims and hold the perpetrators accountable.
*