Does a rapist deserve a military burial?
 

I came across this news article on a feminism forum but I would like to hear TFP idea's on it's implications into America's belief systems. Do you think a convicted rapist or murder for that matter deserve the honor of a military burial? Do you think the sacrifices one makes by going to war entitles them to the benefits no matter what horror a person may commit later? There could always be the argument that going to war could have in fact attributed to his violence. War is something most of us will never understand, and being a veteran should be respected by all but couldn't it be argued that by honoring this man we are in fact dishonoring those who have served honorably in and out of the military.

Imho this man should have been stripped of any military honors he may have received and should not have been allowed to receive a military funeral or be buried within a military burial ground. I think he and other soldiers, who commit such violent acts, disgrace the uniform they wear and dishonor their fellow soldiers and therefore should never be allowed to reap any benefits from their service.




Honoring a convicted sex predator who killed himself behind bars sends a chilling message to victims.
By Anne K. Ream
January 23, 2008
Consider this, if you can bear to. Jenny Bush, a young Arizona woman just graduated from college, walks into her home at the end of a workday and encounters an armed serial rapist, James Allen Selby. Selby, who had entered through a first-floor window, uses duct tape to gag and bind her, and then rapes her at knifepoint before fleeing.

After freeing herself, Bush has the courage to report the crime to police -- and the conviction to pursue legal justice. Following a nationwide manhunt, Selby is apprehended and accused of attacking Bush (who, with three other victims, took the stand at his trial) and at least 10 others, including a 9-year-old girl. In October 2004, Selby is convicted on 27 counts, including armed robbery, rape, kidnapping and attempted murder (for slitting the throat of one of his victims). But hours before facing sentencing, he hangs himself in a Tucson jail.

For Selby's victims and their families, it may have been tempting to believe a certain accountability remained operative: His suicide put a fine point on how little he had left to live for in the wake of his conviction. But his death also granted this serial rapist a moral reprieve that the civilian legal system couldn't. Selby was a Persian Gulf War veteran and so, in accordance with Pentagon policy, was buried with full military honors at Ft. Sill National Cemetery in Oklahoma.

The military policy of allowing honors burials for veterans convicted of rape sends a chilling message to victims: Even the most heinous sexual violence does not trump prior military service. It is a position that is as ethically indefensible as it is inconsistent. In 1997, after Army veteran Timothy McVeigh was sentenced to death for his role in the Oklahoma City bombings, Congress barred veterans convicted of capital murder and sentenced to death or life in prison from being buried with full military honors. Veterans convicted of rape or any other violent crime, however, encounter no such restrictions.

"By honoring those that do not deserve it, we dishonor those who do," Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.) said during 1997 hearings on the policy. McVeigh, he said, "was worthy of honor at one time, but he is no longer worthy of honor." Surely the same can be said of Selby.



Jenny Bush's father, Steve Bush, thinks so. Along with several victims' rights organizations, including my own, he has been lobbying to prevent those convicted of the most serious sex crimes from receiving military honors at burial. Rep. John Shadegg (R-Ariz.), who represents Jenny Bush's district, will introduce "Jenny's Law" in the coming weeks, and Democrat Barbara Boxer of California plans to introduce a companion bill in the Senate.

To be clear, changing the military burials policy would be a largely symbolic act. The Department of Justice conservatively estimates that fewer than 40% of all rapes are reported to authorities, demonstrating how infrequently sexual predators are held accountable. The military in particular has a long history of downplaying or decriminalizing the violence against women committed by men in its ranks. A 2003 Veterans Administration report on military sexual trauma estimated that 60% of women in the Reserves and National Guard experienced rape, sexual assault or sexual harassment while on active duty. Defense Department figures show that there were nearly 3,000 accusations of sexual assault in the military in 2006, up 24% from 2005.

The Miles Foundation, a public policy institute specializing in interpersonal violence associated with the armed forces, estimates that only 2% to 3% of offenders receive disciplinary action as serious as court-martial. More commonly, punishment is of the administrative variety, such as extra duty or a letter of reprimand.

It is tempting, and far too easy, to maintain that the military exists in a realm separate from the civilian world. We tell ourselves that the moral ambiguities demonstrated by soldiers who have gone to battle on our behalf cannot be understood by, or be subject to the laws that govern, the rest of us. But the policies our military establishes to respond to violence against women are not merely abstractions. They are expressions of the military's values, and our own.

In the wake of mass violation of women and girls during the conflicts in Kosovo and Rwanda, rape and sexual violence were for the first time codified as distinct crimes under international law. How telling then, and how troubling, that our country's policy on military burials is at odds with international standards the United States worked to establish.

Anne K. Ream is founder of The Voices and Faces Project, an advocacy organization that seeks to engage survivors of sexual violence in political and civic life.

Wow - they should have just fed him to the pigs. Mind you, "you gotta shave the heads of your victims, and pull the teeth out for the sake of the piggies' digestion" first.

No, a rapist, torturer, or murderer should not get military burial rights.

This situation is not a good example. Because of his death, even before he was sentenced, and he contested the charges....he was convicted after a criminal trial, this defendant never had an opportunity to exercise his right to appeal the verdict, so it would be a simple matter to get the court to wipe out his convictions, as in the case of Kenneth Lay, and thus, there is nothing to discuss, since the "rapist" could posthumously obtain an indictment/conviction free record:

The military doesn't keep tabs on you after you get out. As far as they're concerned, as long as you have an honorable or general discharge, you're entitled to a military burial.

Despite being discharged the type of conduct such as rape or murder is truly unbecoming of an officer, whether that officer be present or former. One should reflect the honor of the title their whole life.

Hell, no! Shouldn't happen. Honored for raping and brutalizing multiple females and then suicide? Time to wake up, Uncle Sam.

As long as you've served your time, then maybe you could be allowed - there should be a case by case review to look into whether true rehabilitation took place.

In this case - while the guy was still inside? Probably not.

Ira Hayes. I don't think I need to say much more than that.

excuse me, i missed the part where the work cited stated he was an officer?

From the OP quote
Ira Hayes - not a rapist or murderer.

I completely agree. :thumbsup:

again, where does the "op cit" state that he was an officer?

jeebus, does anybody listen?

Officers and NCOs have higher standards of conduct in the military.

"No one is more professional than I..." and all that Spartan jive.

Turns out nearly nobody gives a fuck when you leave the service, though.

*high five to Uncle Phil*

I wouldn't doubt the guy was a regular lower-enlisted joe, Uncle Phil.

...

I'd like to think that proper research would be done before a military funeral to see if the military is putting the right kinda guy into a cozy dirt vagina next to a deceased war hero instead of a once-honorable soldier turned piece-of-shit civilian. Turns out they probably put a fair number of OHS-POSCs into the ground every year.

...

I get the feeling most civilians have these weird illusions about the military population.

Army was 25% heroes, 60% average joes, and 15% dirtbags.

and i'm STILL wondering where in the original post anybody stated that the person in question was an officer...

and thanks, cromps...

I'm pretty sure it did NOT state that he was an officer.

I've read through the post about 6 times searching for a clue, and there's none there. I don't know whether someone just made an assumption?

Yeah, stereotypical civilian "Oh, I heard it once in a movie!" fuck-up.

http://forum.signonsandiego.com/showthread.php?t=44838

Definitely NOT an officer.

E4 mafia strikes again.

GED = not an officer.

thankfully, some do...

A person should not be defined by a single act. And in this country the idea is innocent until proven guilty, and giving the benefit of the doubt. He killed himself before he was convicted. He was genuinely a fucked up individual and yes, I pity him. I do not condone him in any way, but to slight a man in death who has taken his own life is dishonorable.

However they were in life, they should be treated with nominal respect in death.

Otherwise you get people like the Phelps coming around.

He is not being honored for his crimes, he is being buried in a military burial for his service to his country. These issues are separate. Sadly, the ethical issues of this world are not shaded in black and white.

If anything this should bear witness to the need to have a more comprehensive mental health care program for veterans, preferably one that is more on the level and less ridden with bullshit.

Unless you count himself. The guy drank himself to death.

Semantic difference, I realize, and certainly not a perfect analogy by any means, but my point still stands.

If the military doesn't want to give the guy a military funeral, they need to find a reason. Perhaps the McVeigh decision does that. I'll have to think about it, though.

You need to re-read the OP - he was CONVICTED, he was merely awaiting sentencing to determine how many years he was going to serve in general population where he would experience the joys of rape himself.

Kinda hard to overlook the Holocaust and see Hitler's goons doing those nice things for science. I'd imagine a rapist is the same way, bro.

I don't know why I am defending this man. But it is clear to me that he was immensely troubled, and probably mentally ill.

He deserved to be severely punished for his crimes. He was, by his own hand. What he did was the ultimate act of remorse, and to clamor for his grave to be permanently marred is wrong.

But back to the OP - This isn't the federal government endorsing rape. The military is an institution primarily for hard men who see and do things that the rest of us would not like to think about, and frequently their background prior to service is less than squeaky clean. Their integration back into society is fraught with peril, and I do not like to see the blame fall entirely on their shoulders. And to then take the only semblance of dignity that they earned is morally corrupt. I guess that is why I am defending the military honors.

Sometimes it doesn't really involve remorse. Sometimes suicide is what cowards do to avoid prison, to avoid the system formally telling them they're a piece of shit.

There is a fine line between remorse and fear.

And sometimes the military is a daycare center for little kids in adult bodies who can't get by in the "real world."

Uncle Phil, this is why it's so important to read a thread through before actually posting.

Example: Here's JumpinJesus breezing through the thread, sees a mention somewhere of Timothy McVeigh and Kenneth Lay and sees not much else.

Here's what JumpinJesus posts:

Why the hell did Ken Lay attend Timothy McVeigh's funeral in a military uniform? Did Ken Lay even ever serve? and didn't that douche bag die 10 years ago? What the hell are we even doing talking about this?

Wow, I agree with Host.... wow.

well lessee. . . .Does that mean Nixon did not deserve his state funeral, since he committed high crimes and resigned in disgrace?

I don't really have an opinion either way - just thought I'd throw this out there.

I never made the assumption regarding this man's rank, and imo I don't think it matters to my initial question. I personally believe that any uniformed soldier regardless of rank should have his benefits stripped once they commit an act of terrorism on another human being.

i don't know that i totally agree with you, savmesom11; however, i was reacting to a post made by another assuming that the soldier in question was an officer while in the military...

Please don't tell me that you are a pig farmer...

I agree he should have been stripped of the opportunity to receive military honors. I can understand in the situation of someone who has been accused but has not gone to trial yet. To give honors to someone convicted on not one but 27 counts? It seems preposterous.

I don't think he should be stripped of his military burial at all. According to the article, he gets the honor because he was a vet of sandbox war number one. He was a veteran of that war, and any future actions of his don't erase that. I don't think anyone on the planet deserves anything at all, but he qualifies for a military burial because of his military service when the country needed him. Nothing more, nothing less.

Tough call. Many people do bad things in their lives, as well as good things.
Do the bad things take away from, or nullify, all of the good things?