U.S. Prison Populations Decline, Reflecting New Approach to Crime

NYTimes   The prison population in the United States dropped in 2012 for the third consecutive year, according to federal statistics released on Thursday, in what criminal justice experts said was the biggest decline in the nation’s recent history, signaling a shift away from an almost four-decade policy of mass imprisonment. [...]

“This is the beginning of the end of mass incarceration,” said Natasha Frost, associate dean of Northeastern University’s school of criminology and criminal justice.[...]

Imprisonment rates in the United States have been on an upward march since the early 1970s. From 1978, when there were 307,276 inmates in state and federal prisons, the population increased annually, reaching a peak of 1,615,487 inmates in 2009.

But in recent years, tightened state budgets, plummeting crime rates, changes in sentencing laws and shifts in public opinion have combined to reverse the trend. Experts on prison policy said that the continuing decline appears to be more than a random fluctuation.[...]

But changing public attitudes are also a major driver behind the declining prison numbers. Dropping crime rates over the last 20 years have reduced public fears and diminished the interest of politicians in running tough-on-crime campaigns. And public polls consistently show that Americans are now more interested in spending money on education and health care than on building more prisons. [...]

Marc Levin, senior policy adviser for Right on Crime, described the change in conservatives’ position on parole violators: It used to be “Trail ’em, nail ’em and jail ’em,” he said, “but there’s been a move to say, ‘Yes, there’s a surveillance function, but we also want them to succeed.’ ” [...]

Joan Petersilia, a law professor at Stanford and a co-director of the Stanford Criminal Justice Center, said in an interview last year that she thought Americans had “gotten the message that locking up a lot of people doesn’t necessarily bring public safety.” California’s example, she said, has also spurred other states to consider downsizing for fear of facing similar litigation. [...]

David Kramer case: When is an apology not an apology?

Tzedek   When is an apology not an apology? When Yeshivah Centre seeks to separate itself from an apology issued by Yeshivah – Beth Rivkah Colleges Principal Rabbi Yehoshua Smukler.

Just two days ago, following the sentencing of former employee and confessed and convicted paedophile David Kramer, Yeshivah College Principal Rabbi Smukler put out a statement apologising for “any historical wrongs”, saying “we empathise with the victims and their families” and “we continue to offer support… to anyone who feels this will be of benefit to them”. (http://www.tzedek.org.au/tzedek-responds-to-sentencing-of-paedophile-david-kramer/#comment-25)

Tzedek welcomed the letter as an important first step by Yeshivah in terms of acknowledging its past wrongdoing but noted the real test will be the actions taken by the institution and its leaders from this day forward. (http://www.tzedek.org.au/media/media-releases/tzedek-responds-to-yeshivah-apology-letter/)

Sadly, it seems that the Yeshivah Centre’s actions have once again failed to live up to its rhetoric.

[...]

Rabbi Smukler’s response seems to suggest that the statement he released on Wednesday must have been only on behalf of Yeshivah College, NOT the entire Yeshivah Centre. Obviously the Yeshivah Centre is yet to issue its own public statement and unequivocal apology. The community and the general public must understand this distinction. [...]

Daughter's claim of gang rape led by father - rejected by jury after 5 minutes!

Jewish Chronicle   A father accused of leading the gang rape of his teenage daughter and using a snake and a gerbil during the attack has been found not guilty on all charges.

The Orthodox Jewish man was accused of sexually abusing his daughter from the age of 10. The now young woman also accused a family friend of raping her and joining her father in leading her gang rape, while she was drugged and bound, with a group of unknown men.

Following a month-long trial, both men were cleared of all charges after just five minutes of deliberation by the jury. [...]

His lawyer, Anthony Metzer, said: “The allegations against my client, a religious family man of exemplary character, were extraordinary and shocking and the jury must have found them to be fanciful and… without foundation.” [...]

Mr Goldberg said in court: “She is a feisty, confident young lady, who never once shed a tear, never once backed down,” and suggested she was “rather enjoying the battle of wits”. As for the girl’s psychologist and mentors, a US rabbi and his wife, Mr Goldberg said: “They’ve all been suckered by her.”

Three key pieces of evidence led to the acquittal in what their solicitor, David Sonn, called “record time”.

"זרוק מרה בתלמידים" - מדיניות חינוכית מחוייבת ?

 הרב פרופ' נריה גוטל

תחומין כו תשס"ו

עמו' 252-269

ז .סיכום :חרב פיפיות בידי המורה

החכם שעיניו בראשו חייב להכיר את מכלול המקורות, הן אלה שמדגישים את חובת  כיבוד הרב את תלמידיו והן את אלה שמעניקים לגיטימציה לזרזים שונים, כולל  להכלמה, מאידך גיסא, הוא חייב שבעתיים להכיר את נפש תלמידיו ,שכן חרב פיפיות  מסורה בפיו ובלשונו, להשפיל או לרומם, יש להניח שבדורנו, בסתמא, אהבה ואחווה  ושלום ורעות הם שיהיו הדרך הנכונה והמועילה, אם כי ייתכנו זעיר פה זעיר שם  תלמידים, שלהם תהא נאה גם דרך ההכלמה, יהאפקטיביות' היא אמת-הבוחן 32  הראשית, 'מדד' זה, אסור לו שייתן חלילה הכשר לכל מה שהמורה הסובייקטיבי רואה  כאפקטיבי, המבחן צריך לשלב מימד אובייקטיבי של נוהגים חברתיים-תרבותיים  הרווחים אותה שעה באותו מקום, עם מימד סובייקטיבי של עולם תלמיד זה שלנגד  עינינו, 'עולם ציפיות' התלמיד, שהוא חלק בלתי נפרד מן העולם החברתי-תרבותי  הרווח, הוא גורם כבד-משקל, אפילו מכריע, מאחר וככל הנראה, בעידן הנוכחי אמצעי  זה פוחת והולך מאפקטיביותו, לכן 'למיחש מיבעי', ומשקל האיסור והשלילה גובר על פי  רוב, והוא המכריע.

Schlesinger Twins: TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE

Help Beth    The judge has made a final custody order.

Samuel and Benjamin’s father has been awarded FULL & IMMEDIATE CUSTODY. My visiting rights remain the same- every Tuesday 11- 5pm and every second Sunday 9-5pm. Visits are to continue at the centre and I will still have to pay 44 Euros each visit to see my children. My applications for weekend access and overnight visits have all been denied by Judge Susanne Göttlicher.

Once again, her decision came as a total shock. She has held NO CUSTODY HEARINGS, has heard all my witnesses IN SECRET COURT, behind closed doors so I did not have the opportunity to cross-examine them or present any of my evidence.

She has not commissioned a psychological assessment on the father or the children, despite my repeated applications and despite her instructions to do so by both the Appeal Court and Supreme Court.

I have a 14 day window to appeal. It is holiday time in Vienna and the city has practically shut down. My lawyer and virtually every good lawyer in town is away on holiday. She timed her last custody decision at exactly the same time. 2 years ago exactly knowing the holiday situation.

More of Rav Elyashiv’s Rulings By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

Five Towns Jewish Times

The former Gadol HaDor, Rav Elyashiv may have passed on to the Olam HaEmes, but his Torah lives on.  Indeed, thanks to the efforts of his son-in-law Rav Yitzchok Zilberstein Shlita, we are privy to new and remakrbale rulings of Rav Elyashiv – in a just-off-the-press sefer entitled Kav V’Naki, Vol. II, by Rav Zilberstein. Some of the rulings contained below deal with fundamental issues that all members of Klal Yisroel should be aware of.  Below are some of the questions divided into the categories of three of the four sections of Shulchan Aruch.

Orech Chaim

Regarding the Minhag of fasting for all who witness a Sefer Torah falling, may the Merciful One protect us, are women included in this custom?  Rav Elyashiv zt”l responded that this is the custom now in Klal Yisroel that all men who observed it fall fast, but the technical absolute halachic requirement was only for the person who actually dropped it to fast.  He also ruled that only men are included in this custom and women who see a Sefer Torah fall do not fast. (OC 13)  [Editor’s note:  Perhaps Rav Elyashiv is expressing a similar notion to that of the author of the Alei Shor that the custom of 100 blessings a day was never instituted for women because they have more natural Yiras Shamayim than do men and were not in need of the takanah of 100 blessings per day to increase the Yiras Shamayim].

Can a Down’s Syndrome child be included in a Minyan of ten? Rav Elyashiv answered that if the following two criterion are met, not only may he be counted but he may even be Motzi the masses with Krias HaTorah: 1] If he can shop without losing money and can accept and hold on to change or if he can travel alone on a bus and 2] if he understands a little bit of what he studies (OC 15).

A baal Teshuvah went back to his home community where the only Minyan that existed was one made up of people that drive back home on Shabbos (Heaven help us), is it preferable to daven with them or to daven without a Minyan?  Rav Elyashiv responded that it is preferable to daven alone, although he noted that Rav Moshe Feinstein argued.  In Rav Elyashiv’s published shiurim on Brachos, however, he did state that under very very pressing circumstances one may include such people in a minyan  (OC 16). [...]

An Editorial on Discourse: A response to Ami Magazine By Rabbi Yair Hoffman

This article is written in response to Rabbi Yitzchok Frankfurter’s editorial in the latest issue of Ami Magazine entitled, “Dov Lipman and Force-Fed Geese.”   I consider Rabbi Frankfurter a friend, and someone who earnestly seeks out the good of the Torah community.  However, in all honesty, I was rather horrified at the extreme tone of Rabbi Frankfurter’s attack on Rabbi Lipman.

Rabbi Frankfurter states that (Rabbi) Lipman is infuriating because of “his peculiar conviction that he wears two hats, one of a politician and the other of a rabbi.”  He further writes, “It is in his self-delusional latter role, in which he preaches as a ‘rabbinic authority’ about those things he says are good for the Torah-true community, that he is so irksome.”

I would like to take issue with Rabbi Frankfurter on two matters:  Firstly, Rabbi Frankfurter is certainly entitled to disagree with both Rabbi Lipman’s views and what he perceives as an “only I know what is good for you” tone.  Yet stating that Rabbi Lipman is self-delusional in the latter role of being a Rabbi is somewhat perplexing.  Rabbi Lipman was a teacher of Torah for many years and was involved in the field of Kiruv Rechokim as well.  To strip Rabbi Lipman of a title that he earned is an act of delegitimization that even the Roshei Yeshiva of Ner Yisroel where he earned his S’micha have not done.  There are many Orthodox Jews that refuse to confer upon the reform or conservative clergy the title of Rabbi because of non-adherence to matters of theology regarding Torah miSinai.  But in this case?

Let us argue from here to tomorrow about issues, but let us not engage in unbecoming ad hominem attacks on others where we engage in the delegitimizing of others.  It could very well be that Rabbi Frankfurter has not delegitimized his S’micha and only takes issue with his preaching as a Rabbinic authority – but the fact that he never refers to Rabbi Lipman with the title of Rabbi, however is indicative that this is not the case.

The second issue, however, is even more disturbing than the first.  Is Rabbi Frankfurter really comparing Dov Lipman and or the government of Israel to the Nazis?  He writes, “What is so tragic about Lipman’s latest pomposity is that Israel would hardly be a light unto the nations by taking measures to ensure animal and poultry welfare.  It was Nazi Germany with its limitless compassion for animal welfare that was deserving of that distinction.”     Have we lost our minds?  Nazis?  Invoking the murderers of our people when speaking about Dov Lipman and the State of Israel?  Why is it that when we voice disagreement with someone that we rush to the ultimate label of offense?  

The main objection of the Chareidi community to what Rabbi Lipman is doing is that he seems to be embarking upon the implementation of an agenda without consulting with the Gedolei Yisroel the leaders of our Torah nation.  But isn’t Rabbi Frankfurter doing the same thing by not having consulted with Gedolei Yisroel as to whether we can compare Dov Lipman to the Nazis?  One cannot imagine Rav Moshe Feinstein zt”l or yblc”t Rav Shmuel Kaminetsky Shlita comparing or drawing any analogy between Rabbi Lipman and his actions to the Nazis y’mach shmam.

As of this writing, this author has just returned from the Knesset where the Knesset committee members are ironing out the details of the plan for conscientious objectors to serving in the IDF  to instead serve in Chareidi-only communities in a medical capacity.  While the determination of who will be considered a conscientious objector will still be overseen by the IDF – the plan overall does allow for Chareidi Jews to enter the work force in attempt to address the issues of rampant poverty.  We in the Chareidi world may think that the way Rabbi Lipman is going about things is misguided – but the comparison to Nazis is wholly unwarranted, divisive and inflammatory.  As far as tzaar baalei chaim and geese go, this author does take issue with Rabbi Lipman on this matter – and Rabbi Lipman agreed to revisit the matter – even agreeing to visit a foie gras processing plant to see things for himself as to whether the force fed geese display any gag reflex or appear to be unduly suffering.  

No one is calling into question the notion of arguing or taking issue with the views of others.  Jews have been arguing since the formation of who we are as a people and even before.  What must change, however, is the inflammatory discourse, and the realization that when we have crossed the line – we must apologize.  

The author can be reached at yairhoffman2@gmail.com

Understanding the Psychology of Child Molesters: A Key to Getting Confessions

Police Chief Magazine  [...] Offender Interview Is Essential

When investigating a case involving a suspected child molester, the stakes are high and a full confession is critical. But the ability to interview and relate to this type of offender is something that doesn't come naturally for most police officers. Many officers find the subject matter, as well as the offender, repulsive. They cannot have an amiable conversation with a person who they believe has molested a child. They are not able to mask their feelings, and they allow contempt, disgust, and hatred to surface during the interview, greatly reducing the likelihood that the offender will open up and share his deepest secrets.

Deep down, most child molesters want to talk. Some are sexually attracted to children and have known it for many years. They may be married, have a family, have a successful business or career, and be active in their religious institution, yet they have a secret that they have never shared with anyone. Most of them have struggled with their desires. They wish that they could change, but they are not able to do it by themselves. They all know that child molesters are hated and despised by society and they believe that no one could really understand their situation. Many know they need help but don't have the courage to seek it.

Although many molesters would really like to talk to someone, they also know there are many reasons to not talk about their feelings and actions. They believe they have everything to lose if they confess. They risk losing their marriage, their children, their home, their friends, their job, and their freedom. They fear embarrassment and humiliation. They are afraid of how the interviewer is going to react to them if and when they make that first admission of guilt. And child molesters fear going to prison. They have heard and read stories about what happens to child molesters in prison. 

When interviewing a child molester, an investigator faces two competing forces: the molesters' deep desire to talk and his fear of consequences. The investigator must exploit the first force while helping the molester to overcome the second. [...]

Understand the Thinking Process: One of the critical keys to interviewing child molesters is understanding how they think. There are several different types of child molester; and each child molester has a particular way to meet his or her needs and justify his or her behavior. Molesters use distorted thinking to rationalize and justify their crimes, to make their own needs most important and to minimize their behavior. Many offenders convince themselves that the relationship they had with their victim was different; that it was a mutual, loving, caring relationship; that the sexual acts were consensual; or that the child somehow benefited from the relationship. The more an investigator understands the way a sexual offender thinks, the more prepared he will be to elicit a confession.

There is no magic interviewing formula that works for all child molesters. An investigator must understand the psychology of this type of offender and then be able to apply that understanding to the interview process. An investigator should understand the differences between a situational and a preferential child molester, because there are different interviewing approaches and themes for each type of offender. If an investigator is going to interview a suspected pedophile, he really should understand the term pedophilia-a sexual attraction to prepubescent children-and should know exactly what that entails. He should understand sex offender terminology that includes distorted thinking, thinking errors, sexual addiction, and the addiction cycle. 

By having a better understanding of sexual deviance, an investigator will be better able to recognize the importance of certain disclosures. For example, many pedophiles were themselves victims of childhood sexual abuse. In this research study, 78 percent of the pedophile offenders stated that they were themselves victims. During the investigative interview, a suspect might disclose his own history of childhood sexual abuse, trying to use it as a defense for his behavior. For example, the suspect might say, "It happened to me; therefore, I would never do that to someone else." In fact, rather than signaling a flat denial, a revelation like that should open the door for an investigator to explore how that sexual abuse might have affected the suspect's own sexual development. Many offenders will admit that their own victimization resulted in confusion and sexual experimentation during their teenage years. This line of questioning will sometimes help the offender to open up and admit to the offense he has committed. [...]

David Kramer convicted of child abuse in Australia

Tzedek  Victim's Impact Statement

I was abused and molested by David Kramer over the course of two years, between the ages of 9 and 11 years old. This abuse happened in the classroom (in front of the class, although hidden from them) in places of worship, in the school library, in his house etc.

I was the epitome of an innocent child. Growing up, we didn’t have a television, magazines, or any secular form of media. I grew up loving religion, excelled in its study and was generally a sincere innocent boy who knew nothing from any sexual conduct. At the age of nine this all changed. I became this horror student who respected nothing. I refused to take tests in school and generally misbehaved. I had no respect for any authority, as the most well-liked respected teacher who was in a position of authority was a total fraud and liar!!

Without getting into the details of my traumatic experience, I will lay out the facts and repercussion that followed & let them speak for themselves:

As soon after the abuse I was the whistleblower and, as a result of my talking he was exposed, the entire school knew that I was a victim. Immediately following Kramer’s expulsion from school I was bullied by other students. Some of these students were around five years older than me. In one incident I remember a boy who must have been around four years older than me, shin me in my thigh and went on to say “this is for making up lies about Kramer”. I was around 11 or 12 years old at the time. I remember running home crying to tell my parents that I was assaulted. I skipped school that day. [...]

Tamar Epstein: The Torah shows sensitivity to the mentally ill

I just came across an interesting article that Tamar Epstein wrote when she was a senior at Stern College. It deals with how the Torah shows sensitivity towards the mentally ill and enables them to integrate as much as possible in the world of business and marriage. The full article is found here. YU Torah Lectures

--------------------------

[...] In all instances Beis Din has the authority to determine who is a shoteh and what restrictions apply to him [4]. 

A shoteh is not only freed from mitzvos, but he is also not held accountable for damaging property to the same degree as normal people. For example, if an ox of a shoteh gores an ox from a normal person, the shoteh is not required to pay the fee that would be demanded of a normal person (Baba Kama 4:4). Similarly, if a shoteh's ox injures a person, or if a shoteh directly harms a fellow Jew, he is not required to compensate the victim (Baba Kama 87a). The Mechilta, under certain conditions, even extends this exemption from responsibility to murder (Mechilta, Mishpatim 4) [4].

The Torah provides a comprehensive model for integrating the mentally ill into society that is both compassionate and realistic. Halacha is sensitive to the limitations of a shoteh and requires the community, and specifically Beis Din, to provide him with care and support. In an effort to maximize a shoteh's quality of life, the Torah exempts him from the mitzvos, but at the same time allows him to integrate into society through commerce and marriage and other activities according to his abilities. Halacha appreciates the varying degrees of handicap and, therefore, offers a flexible system for Beis Din to apply case by case. The halacha is also sensitive to society's need for order and control. Beis Din, therefore, has the authority to prohibit the mentally ill from participating in business and marriage and other sorts of communal activities if the individual can not assume those responsibilities. We must emulate the Torah's example and treat the mentally ill with the same degree of sensitivity and respect.

References

[l]Margaret Talbot. "The Executioner's IQ Test." New York Times Magazine, 29 June 2003: 4.

[2]Zivotofsky, S. (1992). The Shoteh: A Discussion of the Jewish Rabbinic View of Insanity. Pharos. 55:13-16.

[3]Nitzavim - Mental Incompetence. Videocassette. Frand, Y. Yad Yechial Foundation, (1990).

[4]Ibin Ezra, Volume I, Responsa 120, Section 2.

[5]Strous, R. (2001). Halakhic Sensitivity to the Psychotic Individual: the Shoteh. Jewish Medical Ethics. 4:30-34.

Failure of religious leaders in abuse cases

NY Times   The men were spiritual leaders, held up before the children around them as wise and righteous and right. So they had special access to those kids. Special sway.  

And when they exploited it by sexually abusing the children, according to civil and criminal cases from different places and periods, they were protected by their lofty stations and by the caretakers of their faith. The children’s accusations were met with skepticism. The community of the faithful either couldn’t believe what had happened or didn’t want it exposed to public view: why give outsiders a fresh cause to be critical? So the unpleasantness was hushed up. 

This is not a column about the Catholic Church. 

This is a column about Orthodox Jews, who have recently had similar misdeeds exposed, similar cover-ups revealed. 

And I’m writing it, yes, because the Catholic Church over the last two decades has absorbed the bulk of journalistic attention, my own included, in terms of child sexual abuse. There are compelling reasons that’s been so: Catholicism has more than one billion nominal adherents worldwide; endows its clerics with a degree of mysticism that many other denominations don’t; and is just centralized enough for scattered cover-ups to coalesce into something more like a conspiracy. The pattern of criminality and evasion has been staggering. 

But some of the same dynamics that fed the crisis in Catholicism — an aloof patriarchy, an insularity verging on superiority, a disinclination to get secular officials involved — exist elsewhere. And the way they’ve played out in Orthodox Judaism illustrates anew that religion isn’t always the higher ground and safer harbor it purports to be. It can also be a self-preserving haven for wrongdoing.

Early this month, 19 former students of the Yeshiva University High School for Boys in Manhattan filed a lawsuit alleging sexual abuse by two rabbis in the 1970s and 1980s who continued to work there even after molestation complaints. The rabbis were also allowed to move on to new employment without ever being held accountable. School administrators, the lawsuit alleges, elected not to report anything to the police.[...]

The Rebellion of Chief Rabbi Sacks by Rabbi Cardozo

Cardozo Academy  Let it be said. Jonathan Sacks has been a rebellious chief rabbi. Now that he is stepping down, we had better keep an eye on him and hope he will become even more of an insurgent.

Over the years, most of us rabbis have become irrelevant on a global level. But isn’t that what we craved? Yes, we wanted to be spiritual leaders and teachers of our communities, serve our congregants, and become heads of yeshivot. Some of us did very well. But we shunned the idea of going beyond this noble task and taking on the world. We preferred to stay put, teaching conventional Judaism, creating our own comfort zone where our beliefs would not be challenged; where we wouldn’t get upset or begin having doubts and experiencing religious crisis. We wanted to ensure that Tradition would survive and be passed on to future generations. Once we succeeded in achieving that goal, we indulged ourselves in self-satisfaction, content with our own arguments, divrei Torah and Talmud classes. This was our Judaism.

The fact that outside our little world there was religious and moral turmoil was not our business. That religious faith was challenged as never before did not bother us. It was for the goyim to deal with. We buried our heads in the sand and lived happily ever after.

By doing so, though, we robbed the rabbinate of one of its most powerful tasks: to challenge, to disturb, to rebel and to send a strong, passionate message that is not always to our liking. After all, Judaism “is not a sustained, comfortable state of consciousness, but rather a painful, hard-worn and impermanent conviction—a breathing spell in the midst of an ongoing conflict” (*). Great Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard once observed that religion has to function like a thunderstorm, but that over the years it invented sundry lightening-conductors and lost its purpose. The same is true about the rabbinate. It has become a pleaser, a comforter, not a biting critic of our moral failure and our spiritual and intellectual mediocrity. It was not prepared to challenge its own institution, the Jewish tradition; it wouldn’t dare to take a fresh look at its holy texts, at Halacha, and at the spiritual conditions and needs of its own people. [...]

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport explains his views on the Menachem Levy case

Tzedek   Plan to provide my thoughts on the subject next week

See previous post

Rabbi Chaim Rapoport writes:

I have stated my opinion in numerous public forums that paedophiles, as all criminals who constitute a threat to society, should be incarcerated in jail, if necessary – for life, the primary reason being: to protect their potential victims from abuse. I have likewise stated unequivocally that victims and those with knowledge or reasonable suspicion of abuse in the Jewish community must report such cases to the legal authorities in order to ensure that the victims are fully supported, the criminals are penalized and society is protected. I decry those people who exhibit a grotesque lack of sympathy or attempt to belittle the trauma suffered by victims, or, worse still, perversely portray the predators (and their active or passive accomplices) as the victims and cruelly penalise and ostracise victims and their families. I support institutions that are designed to help victims. I myself have been instrumental in setting up support apparatus for victims and have asserted myself to help them in every possible way. Now to the issue at hand:

The case of Mr. Levy and Ms. Goldsobel (both of whom had previously come to me for counseling) went before a Crown Court jury on two occasions. Ultimately verdicts of not guilty on all rape charges and any other charges relating to post-16 activity were entered on the court record. The court was however satisfied that sexual conduct had started before Goldsobel was 16 and that it followed as a matter of law that she could not have consented to that activity, regardless of whether she had been a willing partner. Yet, when sentencing Levy, the judge stated explicitly that he does not constitute a threat to society.

From a Jewish perspective, even if the woman was over the age of 16 when (as the defendant claimed) a long-term consensual sexual affair began, the relationship undoubtedly constituted a transgression of Jewish Law and arguably an ethical misdemeanor. It was in this context that I stated in court that the age of legal consent is somewhat arbitrary, because whether a girl is 15 or 16 does not mitigate the religious misdemeanor and cannot truly be determinant in deciding whether the relationship was exploitative in nature. A clandestine relationship between a 16 or 17 year old girl and a man some ten years her senior may well be exploitative and constitute a breach of trust. Therefore, even according to the defendant’s version of the events, the woman was correct in not allowing the matter to be ignored and when she consulted with me, I offered her empathetic advice, encouragement and pastoral support. It is for this reason that, even before the case came to court, I counseled the defendant on penitential and spiritual ‘rectification’ and prescribed measures for his continuous ethical and religious rehabilitation, including the provision of financial assistance for the sexually offended.[...]

Most sexual abuse in military is covered up because of fear.

NY Times   Among the scores of memories that Tiffany Lucas collected during her years as a Marine gunnery sergeant, she wears most of them with pride.  [...]

But the memory that has haunted her was her failure to push back against a commander who told her not to report a young female recruit who said she was raped by a male Marine, who, Ms. Lucas said, went on to assault two more women. 

“I was too weak to stand up to my commanding officer,” said Ms. Lucas, who served in the Marines for 11 years, including in Falluja, Iraq, in 2006 and 2007. “I really wish I had done something. If I could go back in time, I would stand up for her.” 

In Oceanside, a scrappy beach town 10 miles south of Camp Pendleton, the Marine base that sprawls for 125,000 acres along the Southern California coastline, almost everyone who has served has a story to tell about sexual misconduct in the military. Some were harassed or assaulted themselves, while others worked among men and women who were victims of abuse.

But in more than a dozen long interviews, veterans and active-duty military personnel here sounded a consistent theme: they believe commanders in charge of deciding which cases to prosecute conceal far too much out of fear that the cases will taint their careers. 

“It’s a huge problem, mainly because of the fact it goes unreported,” said Jimmy Coats, who served in the Navy for eight years and was raped, he said, by a man he had been dating.[...]