So if the 00-04 mate is cornered and assulted by their warch partner, what do you propose happen?
Admittedly, I did not read every single post in this thread. Though I read many of them. It appears (though I can’t prove it or know for certain) that most of the posts defending the individuals accused or “the legal system” in general, are likely men.
And therein lies the problem.
Unless you find yourself involved in a case like this, or perhaps YOU have a daughter, spouse, girlfriend, or female friend who has had to face this horror, your view will understandably be skewed towards sympathy for the accused. I get it.
I do not know what the solution is. “He said versus what she said” is the crux of the problem. Out in the middle of the ocean, days away from port where, if overseas, even local authorities will choose to sweep this problem away, let somebody else deal with it. Yeah, I got that, too.
So what do we do? Well I for one opt to consider the allegation as having some weight, in spite of the possibility that the accuser is making a false claim. That always exists, yes, in nearly everything we do. On land as well as at sea.
But given the graphic details any woman has to regurgitate in a serious investigation … voluntarily … and all that follows with your reputation and professional career the accusation will bring, any allegation against another individual onboard a ship, will certainly put you through a physical and emotional ringer. If a female crew member chooses to bring a false claim against another crew, that will certainly change the trajectory of the rest of your life. So why do it? Again, I would give considerable weight to the likelihood that the accusation is factual.
NOT just your seagoing career. It’ll impact your family, social relationships, your own emotional state of mind. This shit will haunt you the rest of your life. This we know for sure.
All that said, I’m surprised the USCG process allows for ‘double jeopardy’ where they are reviewing the case … again. That seems a bit odd. But the USCG, now with a female Admiral at the helm, has an incredibly long road ahead if they want to try and make this process right, from the victim’s point of view. If they don’t get a legally responsible method of investigation and, where applicable, a proper method of dealing with a guilty party, if they can’t get this right today, they never will.
Going to sea should be a positive experience for everyone. Women are out there all over today. That will never change. If you are the kind of guy that does not like that reality, it’s up to you to change your place of work, not them. If you’re one of these dinosaurs that can find it in yourself the “right” to assault a female crew member who is young enough to be your daughter, without the fear of consequence, that kind of depravity has a special place in hell for a POS like you.
9 Likes
Its not “sympathy for the accused” or defending “the legal system”. It’s defending the Constitution. The Coast Guard is the government and the government is bound to follow the Constitutional concepts like “innocent until proven guilty”. Unless you are only satisfied with an accused person being fired and not at all worried about any legal consequences then by all means cast Constitution and legal system aside. Personally, I’d rather see a depraved POS end up in jail.
I put a lot of the onus on the company as the one to respond initially and the primary party with the ability to remove a said accused from the ship quickly and efficiently. The company is not subject to the same restrictions as the government in this instance and may in fact incur civil liability for not doing enough.
I would ask CG if they consider a Sexual Assault to be a Marine Casualty as “An injury that requires professional medical treatment (treatment beyond first aid) and, if the person is engaged or employed on board a vessel in commercial service, that renders the individual unfit to perform his or her routine duties” and if not, why not?
In the end though it all starts with us. Do we turn a blind eye and tolerate the behavior? Who do we protect among our crewmates in this instance? Who is the one who intimidates victims into silence the most, the CG, the Union, the company, or crewmates?
1 Like
Not exactly sure how many time on this post people have to be told that “innocent until proven guilty” only applies when the government is trying to take away your liberty or your property. It has no meaning at all outside or that.
Outside of that, within some small boundaries, companies and people are free to make their own judgements, and apply them as they best see fit.
The Coast Guard has regulatory authority. If it has probable cause to believe a regulation it has jurisdiction over has been broken, it has authority to investigate and if it believes appropriate can suspend of revoke the seaman’s documents. The Seaman can appeal this action.
We kind debate if this is “fair” or not all day long. But I just took a quick scan of my birth certificate and I didn’t see the word “fair” stamped on there anywhere.
2 Likes
Except that for the CG to suspend or revoke a credential based on rape or sexual assault the CFRs require conviction of a crime. The MMC being the said property then yes “innocent until proven guilty” matters.
1 Like
It’s probably best expressed as a ratio. If about 1 in 10 or 15 posts make this point it will continue at that ratio.
At 100+ posts most poster now are scrolling to the bottom to add their 10 cents.
3 Likes
pretty sure this is not correct - could be wrong - what CFR is that ? Think this post from above kind of covers it.
1 Like
Please take another look at the flow chart from MSIB 01-23. a SASH case must pass though a minimum of two investigations, DOJ review and and Administrative law Judge before enforcement action is taken. And the enforcement action may not even be permanent revocation of the license.
Part of the disconnect that I think Maritime Legal aid, to his credit (though I do not endorse, like or tolerate the guy), uncovered is there are loads of cases that stop at the DOJ level for land based offences that don’t make it to S&R. Captain John Merrone for example, went to prison for battery and false Imprisonment, and there was never an S&R investigation. He went on to drug and assault two cadets even though the original allegation was overturned on a technicality.
In the defense of the government this is an administrative nightmare when you consider how many folks have MMCs and aren’t “professional mariners.” Contacting the Coast Guard after ever “Firtst mate Jimbo” from “Uncle Tony’s Tuna Tour” is arrested for indecent exposure after a night out is going to overwhelm the Coast Guard.
2 Likes
Fair enough …
I was going off the text of the CFR and USC
46 CFR 10.235 Suspension or revocation of merchant mariner credentials.
(a) Any MMC or endorsement is subject to suspension or revocation on the same grounds, in the same manner, and with like procedure as provided in 46 U.S.C. chapter 77.
46 USC 7703
A license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner’s document issued by the Secretary may be suspended or revoked if the holder—
(1) when acting under the authority of that license, certificate, or document—
(A) has violated or fails to comply with this subtitle, a regulation prescribed under this subtitle, or any other law or regulation intended to promote marine safety or to protect navigable waters; or
(B) has committed an act of misconduct or negligence;
(2) is convicted of an offense that would prevent the issuance or renewal of a license, certificate of registry, or merchant mariner’s document;
(3) within the 3-year period preceding the initiation of the suspension or revocation proceeding is convicted of an offense described in section 30304(a)(3)(A) or (B) of title 49;
(4) has committed an act of incompetence relating to the operation of a vessel; or
(5) is a security risk that poses a threat to the safety or security of a vessel or a public or commercial structure located within or adjacent to the marine environment.
My first thought absent conviction of a crime is in (1)(b) Misconduct. Misconduct isn’t defined anywhere and the way it’s laid out in the text I would say it would have to be “professional” misconduct while on watch for example vs what some might argue is “personal” misconduct occurring off hours even though on a ship.
You could try going with security risk but that also is not defined.
Again I was going solely off the text of the USC and CFR, good to see there is a process in place that seems to at least acknowledge it as a possibility but that is definitely a long and arduous task to get through and I don’t see where the CG can do anything until that long and arduous task plays out. While “innocent till proven guilty” may not apply, “due process of law” still does.
Who can keep a credibly accused perpetrator off a ship while that process plays out?
5.61 (a) 9 sure seems to be an easy one to use.
thanks
100 %
1 Like
If you go look through the posted decisions there is a couple in recent years where someone has had their credential revoked for Sexual Assault/Harrassment relying on 5.27 Misconduct.
“Misconduct is human behavior which violates some formal, duly established rule. Such rules are found in, among other places, statutes, regulations, the common law, the general maritime law, a ship’s regulation or order, or shipping articles and similar sources. It is an act which is forbidden or a failure to do that which is required.”
When you read the details of the decision it is the person essentially having their credential revoked for violating company policy as the narrative references company policies and the accused signing acknowledgements of said company policy.
1 Like
CNN dated March 22, 2023
Coast Guard officials filed administrative charges against mariner Edgar Sison for alleged alcohol violations stemming from the rape accusations on Friday, a day after CNN reported that the agency had not taken any disciplinary measures against Sison – and had even renewed his government-issued credential. The complaint, which the Coast Guard said seeks to suspend Sison’s credential for one year, comes as officials await a decision from the Department of Justice on possible criminal charges related to the alleged rape.
From here:
That guy should be rotting in jail for 20 years. Instead, he is allowed to “voluntarily surrender his license.” What a damn joke.
8 Likes
Did the Chief Mate from the Mercy ever get named? (“XO” lol)
2 Likes
Oh dear lord, don’t start that again. That was about as close to being banned from the forums as I’ve ever been.
4 Likes
Hey me too!