Looking for suggestions to improve my case study for INSIDER THREAT HLS-470D. Any help and changes for improvement is very much appreciated!!

Insider Threat

March 16, 2025

Failures in Military Justice: The Case of SSgt Randall S. Hughes

Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Randall S. Hughes' case mirrors the glaring weaknesses and shortcomings of the military justice system. Hughes served in the U.S. Army and was charged with numerous cases of sexual violence for ten years. For years, he managed to remain in the military without ever facing any disciplinary measures due to the hearsay and accusations, which were always under investigation. Where the military justice should have held Hughes accountable for his actions, it failed to impose strict measures, which made him re-offend and endanger more people. There have to be changes and limits to the investigation and prosecution procedures in military justice because of this case.

Uncovering the Hughes case shows the office's complacency with the way sexual misconduct charges are handled and the effect of neglect. This discipline gap not only victimized the victim but also created a breakdown in trust in the military command. In this paper, I will describe the serious weaknesses in terms of inaction, discipline, victim empowerment, and superstructure manipulation in the military combined in military justice frameworks to exacerbate the Hughes case, making it necessary to have tighter investigation and prosecution procedures and proper victim protective measures.

Background

Sgt Randall S. Hughes worked at numerous military facilities such as Fort Carson, Fort Bliss, and Fort Dix as (Vianna) opines. His line of work entailed maintaining order and the army decorum. However, such skills were never applied because Hughes was implicated in numerous serious criminal charges. The response by the military to his indiscretions was initially overlooked, thus allowing Hughes to go on with his criminal activities, as (Rempfer) elucidates. His first recorded crime was in the year 2006, when he was accused of rape. The military in-house questioned him, but no criminal charges were filed because they only sought administrative penalties. He was later charged with another sexual assault in the year 2017 when he was reported to have assaulted someone during a Super Bowl celebration.

The military officials didn't court-martial him, which meant he could remain on active duty without prosecution. Further investigation into which Hughes' daughter was the victim of his sexual abuse charges provided some form of closure to this fiasco, as official charges were formally filed. These charges shed light on the military's failure to insulate itself against unresolved problems. According to (Sgt and Hughes) the Hughes case shows the deep failure of the military to address his sexual misconduct effectively. Failures to act proactively during the window of service for Hughes to prevent ongoing transgressions show the systems that empower military personnel, such as Hughes, to continue offending because of the lack of consequences. Hughes's transgressions and the active intervention failures show the need for reform in the system addressing charges for sexual misconduct-related crimes in the military. Hughes ultimately agreed to a plea deal in which he admitted to a number of offenses, including one count of child sexual abuse, two counts of rape, two counts of sexual assault completed by battery, and one act of assault completed by battery on a minor. Hughes acknowledged using inappropriate language and pulling his daughter's hair, but he denied sexually abusing her. He received a 13-year sentence to serve at the Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, U.S. Disciplinary Barracks.

Evaluation of the Case

An investigation into the activities of Hughes revealed defects in the military's response to sexual assault charges. Early contacts by attorneys and the military police with the soldiers were too brief to ensure that someone would be held accountable. There were real barriers to prosecution, including the passage of time and the accumulation of evidence for the older cases. Still, few were reported due to violence and distrust in the system. Most witnesses failed to report or reported late, and this weakened the cases against Hughes. According to (Hill) both his chains of command were unable to bring the charges in 2006 and 2017 to the court martial and preferred to issue the reprimand in the form of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) instead. A GOMOR is an official reprimand but not a derogatory accusation, thereby leaving Hughes with free rein to continue making his accusations. In 2017, when he was finally charged with an offence and subsequently offered the plea agreement in 2020, he was given an extremely light sentence, illustrating the lack of accountability by the military (Hill). It fosters an environment of lack of accountability and perpetuates an unhealthy sociocultural climate in which the victim is discouraged from coming forth and utilizing reporting services.

Proposed Policy Changes and Solutions

To avoid the repetition of the setbacks mentioned earlier, the military should screen and qualify to improve the investigation and prosecution process. In this particular context, the most crucial aspect is the presence of an active-duty trained professional to carry out the sexual assault investigation for the sexual assault accusation. There should be the availability of state-of-the-art and advanced forensic equipment to the police so that evidence can be collected years after the alleged crime was perpetrated, as (Belshaw and Nodeland) suggest. There should also be the removal of independent institutional control to minimize the organization's bias. This would avoid interference by the command in the investigations.

As a policy, stricter punishment for sexual misconduct should be enforced. Firstly, commanding officers should never be the only ones to decide whether the case should be prosecuted or not. Independent judicial authorities should handle such cases. Secondly, pr om mandated reporting and intervening processes are crucial to ensuring that things are dealt with and do not reach the hands of commanders who handle them incorrectly. (Belshaw and Nodeland) note that for the purpose of opening the door to the restoration of trust in the military justice system, it's imperative to offer transparency and accountability for sexual assault cases.

There needs to be public reporting on military sexual assault cases to ensure that cases are treated the same regardless of the circumstances. External review boards should also counter the discretionary power of independent military judges to balance the powers of internal military justice organizations for the sake of compliance and fairness to ensure that the ruling is not made by internal favorable motives, as (Belshaw and Nodeland) further state. These changes will make it possible for the military to establish the kind of environment whereby sexual misconduct is punishable, the victim is cared for, and the offender is identified and dealt with. Without them, cases like Hughes' will continue to destroy the trust in the military justice system and threaten the safety of the servicemen and women.

Recommendations

Greater objectivity and thoroughness in the investigations are required to enhance the response of the military to sexual violence and misconduct. Increased forensic capacities will allow older cases to be thoroughly probed. Further, evidence collection and interrogation techniques need to be reformed to be victim-focused to minimize retraumatization and improve prosecution rates. Policy reform for military justice is necessary. Much tougher penalties for sexual assault should be administered because the crime warrants it. Military commanders who do not act promptly to respond to sexual violence and misconduct charges should be sanctioned to enforce accountability in the chain of leadership (Donnelly and Mazurana) opine. Without a doubt, the empowerment of the victims should be the priority. More legal aid and guaranteed anonymous reporting will enable more soldiers to report without fear of retribution. Additionally, training on the reporting and recognition of misconduct should be enforced across the ranks so that everyone in the military is accountable. The suggested changes would make it possible for the military to address the systemic weaknesses that permitted Hughes to continue offending the sick and to handle future cases with urgency and seriousness.

Conclusion

The SSgt Randall S. Hughes case is an example of glaring loopholes in the military justice system for dealing with sexual misconduct cases. Since the fourteen-year history of unsubstantiated charges against Hughes, it is guaranteed that the institution is loath to prosecute sexual assault cases. This pathological weakness enables the offenders to keep taking advantage of the loopholes in the system while the victims are completely silenced. There must be improvement in investigation techniques, prosecution strategy, and victim safety protocols. Independent monitoring, increased forensic investigation, victim assistance guarantee, and severe punishment for sexual misconduct will bring back trust in the military justice system. There must be increased focus in these areas to avoid such cases in the future. There must be instant measures in strict terms to achieve justice and accountability. If the right measures are not adopted, it will lead to the same narrative breakdowns as Hugh's case, putting troops in harm's way yet again.

Works Cited

"Case Study: Hughes." CDSE, www.cdse.edu/Portals/124/Documents/casestudies/case-study-hughes.pdf.

Donnelly, Phoebe, and Dyan Mazurana.Blue on Blue: Investigating Sexual Abuse of Peacekeepers. 2022.

Golding, Bruce. "Soldier Revealed as Serial Rapist Gets 13 Years in Prison." New York Post, 12 Apr. 2021,

nypost.com/2021/04/12/soldier-revealed-as-serial-rapist-gets-13-years-in-prison/

Hill, Joshua. "GOMORs: The Army's Career-Killing Reprimand."Military Justice Attorneys, 30 Nov. 2020,www.militaryjusticeattorneys.com/blog/2020/november/gomors-the-army-s-career-killing-reprimand/.

Rempfer, Kyle. "For Soldier Convicted of Multiple Rapes, Army Will Review 2017 Decision Not to Prosecute Him."Army Times, 19 Apr. 2021,www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/04/19/for-soldier-convicted-of-multiple-rapes-army-will-review-2017-decision-not-to-prosecute-him/.

Vianna. "Twice Accused of Sexual Assault, He Was Let Go by Army Commanders. He Attacked Again."ProPublica, 9 Aug. 2022,www.propublica.org/article/army-sexual-assault-alvarado-pretrial-confinement.