The military rarely prosecutes adultery cases, but a recent public awakening of rampant sexual assault in America’s armed forces has led judges to consider most probes worthy of prosecution. One case is rousing suspicion after a female Marine was convicted of attempted adultery and deducted $3,000 – though she was too intoxicated to consent to sex.
The Los Angeles Times reports:
Testimony showed that the two staff sergeants, who worked together at Camp Pendleton, went to a motel in Temecula after an afternoon of heavy drinking.
The woman is not being named because she reported the incident as a sexual assault, which was not directly addressed in the verdict.
The woman’s husband, a Marine chief warrant officer, complained to authorities that his wife had committed adultery.
Once Marine authorities decided to send the case to a court-martial, the woman alleged that she had been too drunk to consent to sex.
A toxicologist testified that given the amount of drinking, she was probably very close to a “drunken stupor” and could not have consented.
With that testimony in mind, Francis found the defendant not guilty of adultery but guilty of “attempted adultery” for having gone to the motel with the other Marine.
The man, who is unmarried, testified he was unaware the woman was married. He was not charged.
The military claims this case was prosecuted because the 17-year Marine also lied to officers about the incident. However, it also belies the question: Shouldn’t the male Marine be arrested and sentenced for rape?
Chime in Clutchettes. Why is the military punishing a potential rape victim?