crime

U.S. indicts Kadena base worker for sex with under-age girl

157 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2014 AFP

©2020 GPlusMedia Inc.

157 Comments
Login to comment

I hope he gets prison time, the kid new what he was doing was wrong.

15 ( +18 / -3 )

Dependents behaving badly

8 ( +8 / -0 )

Yes, Japan definitely needs `murica...

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Curious isn't it, that the headline stresses the fact that she was under age.

He was 18, she was 17. As far as I know she is not under age under Japanese law.

That he got her so drunk she was almost unconscious and that he videoed the "encounter" are far worse than the technicality of how old she was.

Let's hope the punishment fits the crime.

As for the "local opposition to a base relocation plan" - the U.S.A. and Japan have done nothing to ease the opposition. The only thing the locals want is NO BASES. Building more bases will only make them more angry.

The US military packing up and going home WILL ease the tension.

2 ( +23 / -21 )

"The US military packing up and going home WILL ease the tension."

That is a tall and unrealistic order. Given current political climates ( not to mention the regional hostility) in the US and Japan, it’d highly unlikely happen any time soon.

13 ( +16 / -3 )

He was 18, she was 17. As far as I know she is not under age under Japanese law.

Underage for alcohol, both of them. The title is misleading.

16 ( +17 / -1 )

The strange thing about this is that it seems both the victim and the perpetrator are American, so while technically it happened in Japan, it is really US territory and doesn't have any connection to Japan. I've never heard about Japanese families living on a US base, are they allowed to?

7 ( +9 / -2 )

I'm sure she had no idea what was going on.

-4 ( +7 / -11 )

Given that a federal court in Minnesota has jurisdiction, it would seem this is a crime committed by one American against another American. The age is an influencing factor in determining charges, but it is the alleged act which is of primary importance. It's a particularly heinous crime, I might add, and I hope this young man pays a very steep price for it.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

. I've never heard about Japanese families living on a US base, are they allowed to?

At the Negishi base in Yokohama, there are a few Japanese families that have no affiliation with the US military that live on the base in the housing area. They hvae been on their family land and have passes to go on and off the base to get to their homes, but otherwise they can't use other base facilities.

Not sure what the general age of consent to sex for the US Federal Govt is, but states do have the authority to regulate it. However, the legal age of drinking in the US is 21, so they will be able to get him on Federal charges for getting a minor drunk. Since this guy was just a nephew of a service member, it will be interesting to see if they will force the service member to be recalled back to the US.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

Foreign nationals can't live on the base unless they are specifically tied to a project needing their services or they are married to an officer or enlisted member. A military employee is any civilian hired to work on a base. There are several Japanese military employees working in the service industry. An 18 year old and a 17 year old is a dicy subject, it's still statutory rape and providing alcohol to a minor since it happened on the base. The biggest issue is videotaping the sex, thats instant pedo laws coming into effect.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

she was “unable to stand, walk or dress herself.”

Let's call this what it is, shall we?

If she's incapacitated, it's rape plain and simple. No need to pull your punches, JT.

15 ( +19 / -4 )

The only thing the locals want is NO BASES.

If okinawan people declare independence, following well-known example of the Crimea, the infamous problem of US bases will be finally solved. No more rapists, abusers and other negative signs of foreign occupation.

-6 ( +6 / -12 )

No more rapists

Yeah, right. Good luck with that.

10 ( +12 / -2 )

First of all, this is a terribly written story. Hardly any facts and mostly just hearsay. The guy was 18, the girl was 17, do you really think he forced her to drink and have sex? Secondly, it happened on base, how did this story get leaked to the Japanese media?

@sidekick, if you want “no more rapists”, you need to look at the Japanese community. No one ever talks about the sexual abuse that occurs on a daily basis here in Japan, but as soon as one American does something wrong, then all hell breaks loose.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

Yes, Japan definitely needs `murica...

Yeah, because you never hear about Japanese people doing this...

1 ( +8 / -7 )

as soon as one American does something wrong

In other words, who cares about "one American" while there are enough "native" rapists in Japan and in Okinawa, in particular, right ? But you have to agree that without foreigners the total amount of rapes would be lower.

-8 ( +6 / -14 )

/If okinawan people declare independence, following well-known example of the Crimea, the infamous problem of US bases will be finally solved. No more rapists, abusers and other negative signs of foreign occupation./

You are kidding rite !

Who will jump it and play Russia's role I wonder ?. LOL

2 ( +5 / -3 )

U.S. news sources reveal that the charge is rape (engaging in a sex act with an individual physically incapable of consenting). According to Twin Cities news: "Investigators then reviewed the video. It showed the sexual encounter, in which Sherwood appeared coherent and the girl appeared intoxicated -- her eyes closed, not moving and laying at an awkward angle, according to the charges".

The "she looks like she's gonna die" quote was spoken by another male present during the act. I'd like to know why he wasn't also charged.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

The details in the above article are indeed sparse, but it seems this little asshat has made a bit of a name for himself with this assault. Fourteen links and counting. A more detailed account of the crime and indictment:

Link: White Bear Lake teen charged with raping girl at U.S. military base in Japan

The U.S. legal system is taking care of the case in a just and timely manner. What else do you want? Oh, yeah. American bases out of Okinawa. Not going to happen, especially not with relations between China and Japan at an all-tie low.

Yes, Japan definitely needs `murica...

Because rape never happens amongst the Japanese population? Because America is simply corrupting the locals? Right.

Sidekick,

But you have to agree that without foreigners the total amount of rapes would be lower.

Yes, lower by a statistically utterly insignificant less-than-1%.

bilderberg_2015,

I'm sure she had no idea what was going on.

Are you being serious here or sarcastic? If the latter, please read the more detailed link. If the former, then yes, she verly likely had no idea what was going on. It sounds an awful lot like this p.o.s. 19-year-old drugged her as well. Based on what he's admitted to, I hope he goes to prison for a long time for this.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

Sherwood admitted he had sex with the girl and said that he videotaped the encounter with his telephone, the complaint said

technically the word "telephone" is correct but interestingly the image is not a cellphone. wow just interesting (sorry for the off topic).

0 ( +0 / -0 )

According to the department of justice website he has been arrested on charges of sexual abuse plus creating/ being in possession of child pornography. http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/May/14-crm-495.htmlThe indecent happened on base and therefore is covered by American law not Japanese. All charges are allegations at the moment but as he has admitted to making the video on his phone he will likely be charged with at least the child pornography charges. Their ages were relatively close but he was still the senior and as he worked in a role that carries some authority/ respect he should have behaved as such.

It is nice to see that the U.S military has stuck with there zero tolerance approach for misconduct on bases. Let's hope this incident has not damaged the girl too much, mentally or physically.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

scumbag

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@Triumvere:

Let's call this what it is, shall we? If she's incapacitated, it's rape plain and simple.

Completely agreed.

Since plea bargains are legal in the US, I assume that they have deliberately withheld the rape charge for now to use as a bargaining chip in pressuring him to plead guilty to the lesser charges (which will avoid the cost of a trial). The US justice system is a bit strange in my opinion.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

I once had this conversation with a fellow serviceman. I asked him if he thought it was OK to have sex with a girl who was passed out. He replied that it was. So I asked him if it were OK for three men to have sex with him while he was passed out... Well, he no longer thought either idea was entertaining at all!

12 ( +14 / -2 )

While this incident did not involve any Okinawan, what it highlights is the problem with too many dependents being allowed to be on Okinawa. This guy was just the nephew of a serviceman but yet he was allowed to come to Okinawa, be under SOFA status, have a base job and be a burden on U.S. and Japanese taxpayers. Because of the generosity of the Japanese Govt. the U.S Military has allowed unnecessary dependents to be stationed here. They bring their mothers, fathers, grandmothers, grandfathers, uncles, aunts, cousins, nephews and anybody else they want to. The reason the bases on Okinawa take up so much land is because of dependents.

On the one hand they say how dangerous the situation is with China and North Korea and that Okinawa is always in danger of being attacked and yet they allow all of these dependents to be here in harms way. Do you believe that the Military would have all of those dependents here if they were really concerned about an attack by China or North Korea?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Saw the news article that was linked in above post, and it answered my question. Since the youth was from MN, that is where the Federal jurisdiction picked up. From reading it, I am going to assume that there will be a few more people involved with this case I thought that this may be a case stemming from the recent HS proms the base high schools have been having, but from the article this case happened back in Feb. Surprised that it has taken this long to get the story out and this "fool" charged.

Since plea bargains are legal in the US, I assume that they have deliberately withheld the rape charge for now to use as a bargaining chip in pressuring him to plead guilty to the lesser charges (which will avoid the cost of a trial). The US justice system is a bit strange in my opinion.

Probably so. I try to tell youngsters that this so called "Stop Snitchin" stuff is only for fools who think that those who got them in trouble are really looking out for them. I would gather that they want to get the other persons who were present and video taping also. The one who normally talks first, gets the better deal. So much for the "honor among thieves."

I am glad that this boy is caught, and I hope that his life is screwed up just as much as he ahs screwed up this young girls. I guess I have to say this, but I hope that the young lady in question was totally unaware of what happened to her (i.e. drugged before hand) but if not, she will need to evaluate the friends she kept and underage drinking. Not blaming the victim, no one deserves this kind of treatment, but a sense of personal responsibility needs to be applied. If you are underage, don't drink until you get a bit more maturity.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

The girl was raped. This'boy' needs educating and to do time.

As others, this rape will not have been 'videotaped', who editied the piece, a techie from the 80s? That would be a massive 'telephone'. It will have been 'recorded', but not videotaped.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

He is being charged with production of child pornography ( 15-30 ) and possession of child pornography but if you add the sexual abuse of a minor that ups the penalty to up to "life" compared to rape (0-15). Using a cell to record what he was doing was probably the stupidest thing he could have done. The underage part comes because of the filming. So now if a Judge wanted to go light on him, it's 15 years if not it could be life.

He would have been better off if this happened off base since under Japanese law there would be no child porn charges without an intent to distribute and rape is from 3 years.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

In other words, who cares about "one American" while there are enough "native" rapists in Japan and in Okinawa, in particular, right? But you have to agree that without foreigners the total amount of rapes would be lower.

That's not what I mean at all, rape is NEVER acceptable in any culture. Now on to the "witness" what was he doing during all of this? Did he see this girl before or after the act happened? There are many questions that are unanswered. Don't judge just because it's an American.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

BertieWoosterMay. 13, 2014 - 07:42AM JST

Curious isn't it, that the headline stresses the fact that she was under age.

He was 18, she was 17. As far as I know she is not under age under Japanese law.

She is under age by Okinawa prefectural ordinance. See Article 17-2 of Okinawaken Seishounen Hogo Isusei Jourei (Okinawa adolescent Protection and Education Ordinance). He is guilty of rape as defined in the Criminal Code for he did not obtain consent from the girl. Even if he did, he is guilty of violation of prefectural ordinance.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

He would have been better off not raping anyone at all. So would the girl. So would society as a whole.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The Japanese legal system needs to handle this case. Doing otherwise proves Okinawa is a colony of the USA. He is not US military, it happened within Japan and the laws of Japan apply not American. Send this to a Japanese family court or it proves the American disrespect of Japan.

-6 ( +5 / -11 )

The Japanese legal system needs to handle this case.

If the crime happened on the base and the suspect works for the military. As such, I believe this comes under US jurisdiction, just as crimes committed off the bases come under Japanese jurisdiction.

Doing otherwise proves Okinawa is a colony of the USA.

Yuri. The law is the law and the SOFA arrangement states that crimes on bases come under the US military. Hyperbole should not enter into the discussion.

or it proves the American disrespect of Japan.

No, just as it does not prove disrespect to the US when someone connected to the US military comes under Japanese jurisdiction when they commit a crime off the bases. It is just a matter of the definitions of jurisdiction according to the SOFA agreement. No need to add any more emotion to what is a horrible crime.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Yuri, the crime happened on a US base which is US soil. It does not prove America disrespects Japan, in fact it shows that authorities toke this very seriously by arresting and removing this person out of Japan.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

rlancyMay. 13, 2014 - 09:05AM JST @sidekick, if you want “no more rapists”, you need to look at the Japanese community. No one ever talks about the sexual abuse that occurs on a daily basis here in Japan, but as soon as one American does something wrong, then all hell breaks loose.

So what you're saying is that we can't talk about it because an American was involved. That's a revolting attitude. And Americans wonder why they've got such a bad reputation??

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@CH3CHO

He is guilty of rape as defined in the Criminal Code for he did not obtain consent from the girl. Even if he did, he is guilty of violation of prefectural ordinance.

Hear hear.. But surely the matter in issue is not the failiure to obtain consent, but that one can never obtain consent from another who is not of sound mind and body to giveth consent. He is guilty for it was impossible to obtain genuine consent in the circumstances. If the scoundrel honestly believeth in a consent, albeit he hath a mistaken belief, his actions in this case must nevertheless be seen as felonious in the eyes of the law.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The law is the law and the SOFA arrangement states that crimes on bases come under the US military.

Yuri, the crime happened on a US base which is US soil

You're both wrong. Military bases are not sovereign U.S. soil and the Japanese have primary jurisdiction over any crime (provided it is illegal according to Japanese law) committed on them. This right is often not exercised, depending on the crime and the status of the accused/victims but it is their call. The bases are not sanctuaries from the arm of Japanese law.

http://www.usfj.mil/Documents/References/Sofa.html

4 ( +4 / -0 )

Sioux Chef,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate your correction.

Does the territory of Japan in the first article pasted below refer to base property as well? I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the bases constituted US territory under the agreement.

a."members of the United States armed forces" means the personnel on active duty belonging to the land, sea or air armed services of the United States of America when in the territory of Japan.

Frungy,

So what you're saying is that we can't talk about it because an American was involved.

I did not get the impression that is what this meant at all. I just thought it was a comment on seeming indignation just because the suspect (creep) is American. What this creep is accused of (did) is not bad because he is American. It is bad because what he did was bad. Discussion that dissolves into ' furriners r bad' just takes away from the actual crime itself. A crime that is horrid no matter who the perpetrator is. Wouldn't you agree?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Sorry - I meant Japan has jurisdiction (not primary jurisdiction) over any crime committed on the bases. In this case, because only dependents were involved, primary jurisdiction defaults to U.S however, this is not because the crime occurred on-base. Also, in a case like this, Japan can ask the U.S. authorities to waive their primary right to jurisdiction (there's no reason they would in this case, but they could).

Bases are definitely not sovereign soil (Navy vessels are a different story). Had the alleged rape victim been Japanese--even if the crime happened on base--Japan would have primary jurisdiction.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Why on earth is a nephew on someone allowed on base and to work - more so abroad? Sorry but bases are for military workers and their spouses and kids only. Unless this uncle was the kid's caregiver, he shouldn't have been allowed to live on base, let alone a base in Japan where I am assuming he would need a visa.

I'm a little perplexed about this making front page news here. Was it a horrible crime? Yes. Am I complain it made the news? No. However, how many llocals make the paper for doing the exact same thing? I get that many Japanese want the GIs gone but what's good for them is good for the locals. More rape reporting and on the front page done by locals please. Lord knows there are more than enough to report.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Sioux Chef,

No problem. That is what I thought. Thank you.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

slumdogMay. 13, 2014 - 03:10PM JST Does the territory of Japan in the first article pasted below refer to base property as well? I was under the (possibly mistaken) impression that the bases constituted US territory under the agreement.

The treaty between the U.S. and Japan is clear that the bases remain the property of Japan and Japanese soil. These are not embassies, the U.S. has merely been granted the use of the bases. I'm not sure precisely where the agreement on criminal jurisdiction comes from.

I did not get the impression that is what this meant at all. I just thought it was a comment on seeming indignation just because the suspect (creep) is American. What this creep is accused of (did) is not bad because he is American. It is bad because what he did was bad. Discussion that dissolves into ' furriners r bad' just takes away from the actual crime itself. A crime that is horrid no matter who the perpetrator is. Wouldn't you agree?

I can see your point here, and I agree that certain groups (police, government workers, U.S. military personnel, and foreigners generally) are guaranteed to make headlines where a regular citizen might not have made it to the news at all, but isn't what rlancy was complaining about. Rlancy was specifically complaining about Americans in the headlines, not foreigners generally, or the undue media attention that several groups get. To my mind that's crossing the line. Your point about the undue media attention any foreigners get is fair play, insisting that Americans specifically shouldn't get undue media attention is not fair play.

Do you see where I'm coming from?

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

This kind of thing went on back years ago all the time in Okinawa, The U.S. can indict all it wants, it wont solve the issue of the lopsided agreement where the majority of US personel are based in Okinawa. Okinawa doesnt want them, leaving the male majority there to deal with a zero tolerance policy.

The answer to take the burden off the Okinawans and let them run their own economy. As a US citizen, I find it shameful to have so many US bases on such a tiny island. They should move them up to the mainland or base them offshore.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Do you see where I'm coming from?

Yes, I agree that what you have written is a fair statement.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are both still kids, I think the focus of the issue is wrong. BOTH underage drinking, he was being a c*ck, getting a girl drunk and RAPING her. Her being underage would have been more of an issue had the man been 30 or 40 something...

2 ( +2 / -0 )

This is actually quite tame compared to what when on years ago; it never made the media.

This will continue to go on; I say let the Okinawians have their island and live in peace.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The Japanese legal system needs to handle this case. Doing otherwise proves Okinawa is a colony of the USA. He is not US military, it happened within Japan and the laws of Japan apply not American. Send this to a Japanese family court or it proves the American disrespect of Japan.

Yuri,

There is no disrespect involved. The Japanese legal system would very likely not want to touch this case, since it seems quite apparent this was a case of an American committing a crime against another American. That the case is being handled by a federal court in Minnesota suggests as much.

Besides, reading through the SOFA Agreement, I came across this:

SOFA ARTICLE XVII

In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

In the case of any other offense the authorities of Japan shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable. The authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular importance.

Does anyone know of any circumstances in which Japanese jurisdiction would triumph in this particular situation?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are both still kids, I think the focus of the issue is wrong. BOTH underage drinking

The title here is misleading. He isn't being charged with statutory rape--he's being charged with the rape of an incapacitated person.

Also, don't know about the "both drinking" part: according to the investigators who watched the video, he appeared coherent--while she appeared to be passed out. He also didn't appear to his coworkers to be intoxicated when he went to work after the rape.

http://www.twincities.com/crime/ci_25747406/white-bear-lake-teen-charged-raping-girl-at

1 ( +2 / -1 )

I would love to write what I really think of this kid but I doubt they would let me.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

America sure loves their child porn charges. If she was alone and filmed herself, they might have charged her! Its pretty crazy.

I wish they would simply make it that if she did not consent to filming, then he be charged for that. There should be a law like this, because whether 17 or 18 the real problem remains the same. If the story is correct, he raped her while she was drugged (alcohol is a drug) and filmed the criminal act without her consent.

The alcohol charges are just more insanity most like. I doubt he forced her or tricked her to drink. Just the fact that he took advantage of her while she was passed out and they apparently had not had any sort of relationship going (important because this hardly matters among regular partners) is really bad enough without going medieval with Americas twisted laws on child porn and drinking age.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

You are kidding rite?

No. I am quite serious.

Who will jump it and play Russia's role

No need for any country to play 'Russia's role'. It's all about either to stay a colony and continue to rot under pressure of foreign occupation or gain independence, freedom and self-respect.

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Frungy,

The treaty between the U.S. and Japan is clear that the bases remain the property of Japan and Japanese soil. These are not embassies, the U.S. has merely been granted the use of the bases. I'm not sure precisely where the agreement on criminal jurisdiction comes from.

The land is definitely the property of Japan. However, I was under the impression that the actual bases themselves were the property of the US. As far as criminal jurisdiction goes, Sioux Chef's link was very enlightening and one of his latest posts was especially so. In this case, it does seem like primary jurisdiction goes to the US. I agree with LFRAgain that Japan probably would not want to get involved anyway. Why would they when you think about it. There is nothing for them to gain from it. Leave it to the US government to take care of.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"The land is definitely the property of Japan"

The signs on the fences around the bases say US Gov property Most of the bases were once Imperial army/navy bases; they lost the right to use them when the occupation started. No need to start with the "its Japanese soil" Is US soil with its own AP or FPO address.

This could of been dealt with locally, without media involvement. The kid probably knew he did wrong, but didnt know he was breaking the law. With the complexity of laws in the US, nobody really does.

The ovekill solution is another recent US phenomenome to everything. It only incarcarates more people, more tax burden and more crime.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The signs on the fences around the bases say US Gov property

The signs I have seen say, "US Army Facility - Unauthorized Entry Prohibited and Punishable by Japanese Law" in both English and Japanese.

It is my understanding that the land is the property of Japan and the bases and their contents are the property of the US.

This could of been dealt with locally, without media involvement.

What do you mean by 'locally' and 'without media involvement'? Beyond reporting what is going on, how is the media 'involved'?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I dont know, perhaps this website? and if its on this website, its on Japanese websites and TV This incident is quite tame. I saw many things back in the 80s down there, that, well, were quite insane. Never made the media either.

The land may be leased, like a 99 year lease, but its understood to be US property. They are spoils of war. Japanese police have little if any jurisdiction on the bases and locals cannot enter without prior clearance from security.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

LFRAgainMay. 13, 2014 - 03:59PM JST

Thanks for providing the SOFA text. I've had a busy day and wouldn't have found time to look it up.

In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

Okay, let's split this into two parts. The first part relates to WHO the U.S. military has jurisdiction over...

The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component

The second part relates to what offenses this jurisdiction covers:

in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

This is a critical distinction in this case because Ricky Isiah Sherwood is not a member of the U.S. armed services, or the civilian component of the U.S. armed services (this refers to civilian contractors, not family members).

The U.S. jurisdiction also doesn't apply to the act, since the child porn video made doesn't fit within "offenses solely against that person or property of ... a dependent", but rather is a national crime that isn't solely against any person or property.

The U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction in this case.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

"The U.S. doesn't have jurisdiction in this case."

He had SOFA status as an employee and as a family member, otherwise he cant work on the base. DOD contractors also have SOFA. Japanese employees on the base fall under Japan law.

He is a US citizen, not married to a Japanese, thus not elligible to work for the Japanese system. He, therefore, must be SOFA.

You have a limited understanding of how the bases work...but dont be discouraged by that, as your not missing anything )

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The case is handled in US. This means harsh sentence. 17 is underage in the most of US states. About video, there are a variety of i-phones that you can video and voice record you can carry in your purse or hand. In many states, once you are accused of any sex crime, you will be registered in sex offender list and many more requirement you have to follow local ordinances as sex offender. He is a US citizen from Minn so he is facing harsh US laws, One thing, if any US officials advised the famous : You have right to remain silence ,,,,," etc before he opened up his mouth ? . Otherwise what he said is not going to hold for prosecutors. Many criminals use 5th Amendment in court. But he sounds not bright and so he will blurt in court to lose his chance for plea bargain, I'd bet. His court assigned defence lawyers will have headache to handle a big mouth and stupid defendant,

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

The military must ban all alcoholic beverages on base and forbid all members to drink alchohol while posted in japan. The us military is an embarrassment with their lack of control over their people. They should leave defense up yo japanese.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

@Kevin,

Yes, but of course. A young man or woman joins the military to serve their country but cannot even enjoy a beer, but can become amputated or disfigured for their country and be lucky if they get treated by a VA hospital.

They should enjoy all the rights of anybody else. There are reasons for the misbehavior of these people, which I wont address here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

The criminal complaint alleged that Sherwood gave alcohol to a 17-year-old girl and had sex with her when she was so drunk that she was "unable to stand, walk or dress herself." It quoted a male witness as saying of the girl, "She looks like she's gonna die."

Not trying to downplay this situation but 2 kids on a night out could be..

17-year-old girl took alcohol from Sherwood, they had sex, they were both drunk

No excuse for his behavior of course. This part is confusing..

It quoted a male witness as saying

There was a witness to the entire event, or just the drinking?

And if he recorded the event on his phone without her knowledge, chop his tackle off, simple.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@Kevin, Yes, but of course. A young man or woman joins the military to serve their country but cannot even enjoy a beer, but can become amputated or disfigured for their country and be lucky if they get treated by a VA hospital. They should enjoy all the rights of anybody else. There are reasons for the misbehavior of these people, which I wont address here.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

He is not a serviceman. In Oct 2012, US servicemen were ordered to curfew after 2 Navy men gangraped in Okinawa. That does not affect civilian. Like you suggesting, this civilian must have been enjoying all the right of anyone else that include raping?

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

@toshiko, A dependant is not a servicemember. In my assesment, a dependant is part of the problem. There are too many of them, too many dorms, too many recreational facilities, and more and more rules. The days of squad bays and unit cohesion worked. members were connected because they lived in close proximity. When a member did a crime, he was shamed. Now the gov. throws the zero tolerance policy at every problem. They should berth the Marines out on LST in the sea, and give them liberty cards. Okinawa would be a hardship tour. Instead its more like a college campus with extreme rules. Memebers should be an E5 or above before getting married. Everybody wants to be an individual. It creates an enviroment of selfishness, isolation and misbehavior. There are layers of bureaucracy that are disconnected from the problem (as the poster Kevin suggested, just ban all alchohol, it will solve the issue. What do you suggest in its place, sports drinks?)

0 ( +1 / -1 )

5petalsMay. 13, 2014 - 08:21PM JST He had SOFA status as an employee and as a family member, otherwise he cant work on the base. DOD contractors also have SOFA. Japanese employees on the base fall under Japan law.

The treaty specifies very clearly that he must be a member of the U.S. armed services or a civilian contractor to the U.S. armed services. Last time I checked "part-time lifeguard" isn't a position in the U.S. armed services, and being a family member isn't covered.

He is a US citizen, not married to a Japanese, thus not elligible to work for the Japanese system. He, therefore, must be SOFA.

You're missing the point. He may be here under SOFA, but that doesn't mean that the U.S. has jurisdiction over the case automatically. The criteria for jurisdiction are very clearly spelt out in SOFA, and he doesn't meet them.

You have a limited understanding of how the bases work...but dont be discouraged by that, as your not missing anything )

Yes, I have a limited understanding of how the bases work, however I am capable of reading and understanding the relevant passage from SOFA, so you can stow the patronising attitude. Base administration does not trump an international treaty, although you seem to be having a hard time understanding precisely where U.S. armed services base regulations fall in the hierarchy of the international legal system. They're somewhere between the nutritional guidelines on snickers bars and the stuff you wipe your rear end with in the latrine.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Regarding jurisdictional issues in this case, even though the incident occurred within a US facility or area, the fact that the victim and suspect are civilian means Japan could exercise primary jurisdiction. I'm sure the Japanese Police and Public Prosecutor were advised of the crime and subsequently waived jurisdiction, as no Japanese nationals were involved (this is typical). As such, the case could then be prosecuted by the US under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which allows federal and state officials to prosecute crimes committed by US citizens overseas.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Frundgy,

No need to get hyped and lecture. I know the system well. Dependants are SOFA; they are family members. There are many catagory of SOFA, and its complex. I have a copy of the SOFA (I dont care to reread it) and its quite long. You only got a paragraph or two, and even reading it is not enough, you must experience it. (this line of reasoning connects with my previous posting, so many making the rules who are disconected from reality) Some bases retirees and reservist cannot enter facilities, others they can. This young man was a family member, most likely approved by base legal. You just cant enter the base and be exempt from SOFA, the SOFA protects them from Japanese jurisdiction, such as taxes, laws etc. What do you mean the "international legal system? The SOFA is an agreement between the US and Japan. Many other countries have them as well. What do you mean the US does not have jurisdiction over him? He is under SOFA; he does not carry an alien registration card. SOFA clearly applies to him. If the SOFA didnt apply to him, the case would not of made it to Federal prosecutors, it would of been handled by Japanese investigators and their prosecutor. Your saying they have a more limited understanding of the law than you???

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Frungy,

I think 5petals may be correct and you may be mistaken. In the case of this suspect (creep), it seems to me that he falls under the category of 'civilian component'.

Hopefully you can open this link:

http://www.niraikanai.wwma.net/pages/archive/sofa.html

In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply: •(a) The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to ◦(i) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against the person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; ◦(ii) offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

Clearly, this suspect (creep), who is a civilian component, is being accused of offenses solely against a dependent. So, it does seem as though this falls under US jurisdiction.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@slumdogL it does seem as though this falls under US jurisdiction.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

I agree with you.. I much prefer he gets harsh sentence in USA than in Japanese court.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

@ Frungy,

Reread the paragraph you quoted *in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

It includes "or of a dependant"

Anyone who has ever been employed on a base knows this, not to insult you but its a no brainer in that community ) Some bases, however, as I recall, would not of allowed a nephew to reside with another SOFA member. The AF has its own rules but falls under the SOFA umbrella. Call a base legal office to confirm

@lincolnman "the fact that the victim and suspect are civilian means Japan could exercise primary jurisdiction" The victim and suspect were both SOFA. do you know what your talking about? If one was Japanese, one SOFA, then yes, the Japanese law enforcement might have a case, when both are SOFA, they have no case. When you get SOFA, you get a stamp in your passport, your other visa is voided. Same goes with japanese residency, the SOFA gets voided.

*

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5petalsMay. 13, 2014 - 10:06PM JST Reread the paragraph you quoted *in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

That relates to the type of offences comitted, not to the people committing them.

I did however find this: http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/n-america/us/q&a/ref/2.html Article 1.b ""civilian component" means the civilian persons of United States nationality who are in the employ of, serving with, or accompanying the United States armed forces in Japan, but excludes persons who are ordinarily resident in Japan or who are mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article XIV. For the purposes of this Agreement only, dual nationals, Japanese and United States, who are brought to Japan by the United States shall be considered as United States nationals."

The part I've bolded, "accompanying", is pretty vague, but could be why they're claiming jurisdiction in this case. The phrasing on the 1.c. is also pretty vague, "dependents" means (1) Spouse, and children under 21;". It doesn't state that they must be the spouses of service members, they could be anyone's spouse, nor that the children must be in any way related to anyone on the base. It is wide enough to drive a truck through, and this isn't your friend when it comes to a legal document.

Anyone who has ever been employed on a base knows this, not to insult you but its a no brainer in that community ) Some bases, however, as I recall, would not of allowed a nephew to reside with another SOFA member. The AF has its own rules but falls under the SOFA umbrella. Call a base legal office to confirm

With all due respect, but this is not a "no brainer". You quoted the wrong part of the SOFA agreement. The SOFA agreement is so vaguely worded as to be unenforceable. If the Japanese authorities wanted they could argue that a nephew isn't a "child" as intended in SOFA, and so not a dependent (1.c), nor is the nephew "accompanying the U.S. armed services" (he's accompanying a service member, not the armed services itself), and so he's not covered by 1.b.

The reason the Japanese don't want jurisdiction here is simple, it was U.S. citizen on U.S. citizen crime and they don't see any reason to get involved. Don't confuse that for not being able to assert their jurisdiction in this case, or in any other case. The SOFA is incredibly unclear, which leaves U.S. military personnel entirely at the mercy of political agendas, as we've seen in several cases where the lack of clarity in SOFA has been used by the Japanese authorities to assert jurisdiction.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

What a disgusting POS! Of course, he is also underage regarding alcohol, but he essentially drugged her and raped her, regardless of her nationality. When he gets to the Big House he'll deeply regret his reprehensible actions.

I feel really sorry for the poor girl. Let's not forget how terribly she's been victimized.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

U.S. prosecutors Monday indicted a military employee in Japan for allegedly having sex with a drunken under-age girl, amid a no-tolerance policy for misconduct on bases in the allied nation.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

It is clear that US prosecutors indicted., not Japanese prosecutors. It only matters that he is US citizen. Evidence of video in his i-phone will work against him. He has to appear in USA Court now. Unlike Japanese court that use interpreters, just English only.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This incident is quite tame. I saw many things back in the 80s down there, that, well, were quite insane. Never made the media either.

It is no longer the 80s. A long process by the US Military to integrating females has been going on for decades. In two years, females will be put in combat roles.

The land may be leased, like a 99 year lease, but its understood to be US property. They are spoils of war.

It is no longer 1950. Japan is supposed to be our ally, since you forget...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Frudgy,

Civilian component refers to organizations that support the US military, like MWR or NAF. Some are appropriated fund, others non appropriated. It means Congress appropriates their funding, or they get there money from sales at the PX etc. The young man probably worked for MWR and was P/T. In order to be SOFA, you must work 40 hours, thus, as I recall, he was inelligible for the SOFA package, but due to his accompanied status with his nephew, who was a serviceman. In some cases, as I recall, family members are allowed to accompany servicemembers, who are their sponsor. They fall under the SOFA agreement; thus his employment is irrelevant to his status.

Your reading way to much into the SOFA interpretation. It was written after the war, and hasnt been modified very much since that time. I didnt quote the wrong part of the SOFA. You did not comprehend the paragraph you quoted; it clearly says civilian component (which are supporting organizations like MWR) and dependants. Whats so hard to comprehend about that? Stop trying to intelectualize about it.

Whether or not a nephew is a child is irrelevant. He is a dependant. Fathers, mothers, grandmothers, all can be dependants. The key word here is dependant. The SOFA is not incredibly unclear, its clear as day. Your understanding is unclear.

You quoted this: "civilian component" means the civilian persons of United States nationality who are in the employ of, serving with, or accompanying the United States armed forces in Japan, but excludes persons who are ordinarily resident in Japan"

whats unclear about it? Civilian component. Nonmilitary. If you ever worked on a base you would know they are numerous organizations that support the US military abroad. They are also covered under the SOFA. Ordinarly residents of Japan are all others to include you and me. We ordinarly reside in Japan; we are not on orders to do a tour in Japan by the US government. Whats so difficult to understand about that?. As I said before, your in territory you are unfamiliar with, so stop trying to make it something it isnt.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Who pays cost of US military base in Japan? American taxpayers ? How much ? How much in future "

Japan has been reducing its funding to support bases over the last decade, dropping from a high of $3.17 billion in 1999 to $2.15 billion last year.

Shapiro told Kyodo News that Japan’s support of the bases should remain at current levels in order to ensure regional security, especially at a time North Korea is suspected of sinking a South Korean warship in March and China is flexing its naval muscles in international waters near Okinawa. (5/2//2014 info.)

The word for these payments are Omoiyari Yosan. (Empathy Budget)

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Still trying to understand your lack of reading comprehension:

"nor is the nephew "accompanying the U.S. armed services" (he's accompanying a service member, not the armed services itself), and so he's not covered by 1.b."

A service member is a member of the US armed services. His nephew accompanied him as a dependant.

"The reason the Japanese don't want jurisdiction here is simple, it was U.S. citizen on U.S. citizen crime and they don't see any reason to get involved. Don't confuse that for not being able to assert their jurisdiction in this case, or in any other case. The SOFA is incredibly unclear, which leaves U.S. military personnel entirely at the mercy of political agendas, as we've seen in several cases where the lack of clarity in SOFA has been used by the Japanese authorities to assert jurisdiction."

Wrong, your confused ) Its not that the dont see any reason to get involved. Civilians on US bases are not covered by the UCMJ, thus, in most cases they cannot be court martialed. Both military and civilians fall under the SOFA agreement, but civilians fall under US code law. They must be prosecuted by the US court system, as was done in this case. How could you prosecute a US citizen who, for example, forged a check on a base in a Japanese court? The SOFA article below is clear on this:

SOFA ARTICLE XVII In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply: The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty. In the case of any other offense the authorities of Japan shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable. The authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular importance.

In the case of any other offense, such as off base robbery, rape etc. This is left up to the base SJA and Japan prosecutors office.

I mean, dont you think that the staff judge advocates office knows how to interpret the SOFA? If there was a "hole big enough to drive a truck through" then the defense attorney for both military and civilian representation would win every time.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Can US afford to evacuate military bases in Japan? I mean moneywise. Japanese Govt will pay relocation cost but can USA find any countries that pays so many billion dollars a year?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5petals "the fact that the victim and suspect are civilian means Japan could exercise primary jurisdiction" The victim and suspect were both SOFA. do you know what your talking about? If one was Japanese, one SOFA, then yes, the Japanese law enforcement might have a case, when both are SOFA, they have no case. When you get SOFA, you get a stamp in your passport, your other visa is voided. Same goes with japanese residency, the SOFA gets voided.

I'm afraid your understanding of the SOFA and criminal jurisdiction in Japan is inaccurate. Military authorities in Japan have no criminal jurisdiction over US civilians on US bases; US civilian employees, family members (dependents) or US contractors. They can take administrative action such as barring from base, but that's all. As such, any criminal conduct committed by these civilians, the Japanese government has primary jurisdiction. In most cases, they decline this right of jurisdiction if no Japanese nationals are involved. But the US cannot proceed with a MEJA case without a GOJ declination first. You seem to be confusing 1) jurisdiction with 2) the decision by the Japanese Police/Prosecutor to assert that authority and investigate and prosecute a case.

Prior to the passage of MEJA in 2000, there were several serious criminal incidents committed by US civilians against other US citizens within US facilities that the US strongly encouraged Japan to prosecute - and Japan did. One I clearly remember that occurred in the early 80s was a high school student who stabbed to death another high school student on base.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

U.S. military benefits for the dependents of servicemen are designed to provide protection for the families of those who are actively deployed or are gravely injured in the line of duty. These benefits act as a means of filling the financial gap caused by the absence or death of Army servicemen. Dependents are not usually required to apply for benefits and are granted them automatically unless the benefits, including certain education programs, require prior approval.

Servicemen claim their dependent when they enlist, marry (if single), child is born, Right or wrong? Immediate family only? /dependent allowances added to his paycheck? Am I wrong?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You have a limited understanding of how the bases work

LOL. When a personnel drinks, rambling here and there, abusing locals it is not that hard to understand 'how the bases work'...

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

18 year olds are adults under U.S. law. 17 year olds are minors. The age of consent is a non-issue here as the adult got the minor so drunk she couldn't realistically give informed consent. Therefore this was rape of a minor. Taking photos and videos of having sex with a 17-year old falls under child pornography laws. Getting her drunk falls under underage drinking laws.

RE: The "lawyers" here claiming that the U.S. military doesn't have jurisdiction over this case:

Article I clearly defines who constitutes a member of the civilian component and who constitutes a member of "dependents":

(b) "civilian component" means the civilian persons of United States nationality who are in the employ of, serving with, or accompanying the United States armed forces in Japan, but excludes persons who are ordinarily resident in Japan or who are mentioned in paragraph 1 of Article XIV. For the purposes of this Agreement only, dual nationals, United States and Japanese, who are brought to Japan by the United States shall be considered as United States nationals.

(c) "dependents" means:

a.) Spouse, and children under 21;

b.) Parents, and children over 21, if dependent for over half their support upon a member of the United States armed forces or civilian component.

The girl was most definitely a dependent. The boy was a member of the civilian component AND a dependent for the simple reason he was working part-time as a life guard (I'll give you three guesses which country pays the wages of a lifeguard on a U.S. base, and the first two guesses don't count) while also living with his uncle. If he didn't live with his uncle, there would have been no need to state in the article that his uncle was a serviceman.

Article XVII clearly defines who has jurisdiction when Japanese nationals are not involved in the incident:

In cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

(a) The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to (1) offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against the person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent...

Article XVII-3 deals with cases where the incident is a crime under both the U.S. and Japanese laws. The United States military absolutely has primary jurisdiction in this case. A civilian component of the U.S. military raped a dependent.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Fadamor,

Wrong. If the US has no jurisdiction over civilians working on base, then there is no need to cover them under the SOFA. I also clearly remember several civilians who were involved in various crimes. The Japanese investigator was not involved. It was CID. They were escorted by Fed Marshals and deported. You cant just make it up as you go along; you and others here dont understand how the SOFA covers members stationed and working in Japan. A local hire, if they are a US citizen, can become SOFA if they work over 40 hours. A Japanese spouse, if they are a dependant and married to another SOFA member, can become SOFA. US civilians under SOFA legally never left the US. In the case of crimes against locals, the SJA might hand them over to the Japanese if the Japanese request. Crimes against other SOFA members, the US has jursidiction. The SOFA, once again, is clear on this:

"The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty. "

I hope you and frungy dont work in legal; I surely would not want you to represent me ) Cant you read the paragraph? "shall have the primary right" trumps any Japanese jurisdiction

" The boy was a member of the civilian component AND a dependent for the simple reason he was working part-time as a life guard (I'll give you three guesses which country pays the wages of a lifeguard on a U.S. base, and the first two guesses don't count) while also living with his uncle. If he didn't live with his uncle, there would have been no need to state in the article that his uncle was a serviceman."

Wrong. I was once SOFA many years ago, and to be covered under it, you must work 40 hours. Dependants, such as spouses, want to work because they are on 3 year deployments with their spouse and will have a gap in the employment. They got the SOFA stamp so they are elligible for P/T work. There are some jobs that are P/T such as the young man was doing. He was SOFA for the simple reason of his job, is once again, incorrect. you need to experience the system before you can comment on it. He was SOFA because of his accompanying status of his uncle, making him a dependant. His uncle had to submit a package and get it approved. As I recall, its up to the base commander and base policy; not all bases allow it.

If he didnt live with his uncle, he would of had to get a 40 hour week job to be included under the SOFA

Youll give me guesses as to which country was paying his salary. Well, obvisouly, once again, you never worked on a base or you would know that answer. The US gov was paying his salary. He is not an ordinarly residing citizen in Japan, thus inelligible for Gov of Japan jobs on the base. (MLC/IHA). He was most likely working for MWR since they are the ones who employ lifeguards.

"Article XVII-3 deals with cases where the incident is a crime under both the U.S. and Japanese laws. The United States military absolutely has primary jurisdiction in this case. A civilian component of the U.S. military raped a depende"

You and others here keep confusing "civilian component" with dependant. Civilian component means organizations that support the US military. DODDS schools, MWR, DECA, NAF, AAFES, etc etc. They are not military, they are civilian components of the base You, for some reason, keep ignoring the "or of a dependent" part. Civilian component and dependant are two different things. A civilian component didnt rape anybody. He is not a civlian component. Civilian components are organizations. He was a dependant. He was a P/T member of a civilian component (most likely MWR), but due to his P/T status, this is irrelevant. His status as a dependant is where the jurisdiction lays.

:

0 ( +0 / -0 )

5petals,

I think you should really read Fadamor's post again. He agrees with you that the US has jurisdiction.

In addition, I will start off by saying I am not an expert on SOFA, but it seems to me that the suspect (creep) could also be considered a civilain component under the definition of such under SOFA.

•(b) "civilian component" means the civilian persons of United States nationality who are in the employ of, serving with, or accompanying the United States armed forces in Japan

Perhaps there is a part about how many hours are necessary that I have not seen? I know you have mentioned it, but it was not mentioned in the SOFA definition.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@slumdog You are correct, apologies to Fadamor, I was confusing with Frungy. Fadamor is right, the US has juridiction.

Im not a lawyer, but having experienced the SOFA, let me break it down for you:

There are US military in Japan. They fall under the SOFA and UCMJ, the military legal system. In most cases, the UCMJ does no apply to civilians. They have courts, brigs, and their own legal system.

There is a civilian component in Japan (non military). They are DOD organizations that support the US military. They also fall under the SOFA jurisdiction, but not the UCMJ.

Then there are dependants. Dependants accompany service members or other SOFA members.

Then there are Japanese employees on the base, they fall under Japan law. Their employment is administered by the US, but paid by Japan.

Compare it to the Holiday Visa work program that commonwealth citizens enjoy in Japan. They can work at certian places throughout Japan.

A US citizen can apply for work on bases. They must work 40+ hours to get SOFA. They will be employed by a civilian component, and be covered by the SOFA. They will have access to many facilities not open to Japanese, a Y plate car, legal representation etc.

There are jobs on the base that are P/T, only available to US citizens. Its to give dependants something to do, be employed. They must have SOFA before they can apply, as SOFA only cover full time jobs

There are several regs that are not mentioned in the SOFA. The SOFA is like the constitution; it is the final word, and if I remember correctly, adminstered by USFJ.

The article says the young man was employed P/T. It also says he was staying with his uncle, a servicemember. Many "lawyers" here are using a strict interpretation of the SOFA to exclude him as a dependant. Servicemembers, as I recall, can sponsor family members, not only spouses and children.

The young man didnt come to Japan to work on a base, as many do, and get SOFA sponsorship from a civilian component. He came as a dependant, applied for a P/T job that didnt require SOFA, but was otherwise elligible due to his dependant status.

Lincolnman is partially correct; bases can only do so much to civilians. This doesnt mean, however, they get away with crimes. What happens is they can be barred. Then what? They have no legal status in Japan. They are deported to their last legal residence, in this case MN.

MN therefore has jurisdiction, and as was mentioned in the article, they will prosecute there.

This cases jurisdiction is actually quite simple. There are much more complicated situations.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

rape

0 ( +0 / -0 )

They are deported to their last legal residence, in this case MN . . . MN therefore has jurisdiction, and as was mentioned in the article, they will prosecute there.

Hate to pick nits but Minnesota does not have jurisdiction; he is being charged in federal court.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"Prior to the passage of MEJA in 2000, there were several serious criminal incidents committed by US civilians against other US citizens within US facilities that the US strongly encouraged Japan to prosecute - and Japan did. One I clearly remember that occurred in the early 80s was a high school student who stabbed to death another high school student on base."

There have been several serious criminal incidents committed by SOFA against SOFA for many years on the base. How could the Japanese legal system prosecute every incident on a base? In the case of shoplifting, forgery, larceny, murder, assualt, drug trafficking, mail fraud, etc etc. the Japanese courts would be overloaded with people who could not speak japanese, a legal system completely different than the US.

Thats what the SOFA is for. Sure, some cases are handed over to the Japanese. The MEJA was most likely passed to give Japanese prosecutors more access to prosecute US citizens covered by the SOFA for henious crimes. There was complaints in the media for many years that US SOFA types would do a crime out on the town, then run back to the base and be in the clear. The US clamped down on this after much complaining from the Japanese and the famous rape case by the Navy Corpsman and USMC members..

In the case of SOFA vs SOFA, the US has jurisdiction.

n cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:

The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

In the case of any other offense the authorities of Japan shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. If the State having the primary right decides not to exercise jurisdiction, it shall notify the authorities of the other State as soon as practicable. The authorities of the State having the primary right shall give sympathetic consideration to a request from the authorities of the other State for a waiver of its right in cases where that other State considers such waiver to be of particular importance.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

rape is not federal case. Because he is from Minn, Minn Courts will handle. Probably municipal court of County he is from. That is why his case is handed to Minn, Court.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Toshiko,

Sioux is right, MN has no jurisdiction as a state, since the crime occured on Federal property. It seems the young mans last residency was MN, therefore he was deported to there. The Fed district court in MN will prosecute.

All of this legal argueing is pointless. As I mentioned in a previous reply to Toshiko, the problem is much bigger. How does the sponsorship of a nephew dependant contribute to the overall US military mission in Japan? It will cost several thousand dollars to prosecute this case, fly the young man home, possible prison time, all paid for by tax money. Multiply that by the dozens or more cases every year, the salaries of the people to process it, the figures add up to allot.

The whole dependant issue needs to be addressed. Okinawa should be an unaccompanied tour. Bases should be consolidated or moved to the mainland.

I dont think the Okinawa people are lazy. They have given up, they are defeated due to the mainlanders racism and inablity to take action. The island should be a FTZ, tourism, casinos and agriculture. The only thing you ever here coming out of Okinawa is news like this.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Why on earth is a nephew on someone allowed on base and to work - more so abroad?

@ tmarie: His uncle (military member) would have to have leagal guradianship of him for him to be here. This can be done and if his uncle has gone through the proper paperwork, he could be alllowed to stay in Japan as a dependent.

As others have pointed out, Japan could have tried this, but in cases like this where it is "US v US" they leave it to the Americans. It would be more of an effort on their part, getting translators, and going through the whole process of making sure that the defendant and accused would understand Japanese law, they find it much easier to just let the US authorities handle these types of case.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

St. Paul: Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse Minneapolis: United States Courthouse Duluth: Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse & Customhouse Fergus Falls: Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building Locate a Courthouse - U.S. Courts Website (New Window)''

Every state in USA have several Federal Court Branches. Minn. has only 5. One ot above Federal district court must be handling as rape is not federal case but it was done by US base employee. USA can not afford 2.1 billion dollars a year to let U/S bases in Japan. Instead of handling this man to Japan that cost several interpreters and court cost, it was wise to ship him to Minn. To San Diego with accompanying MPs and then another military airplane. The charge trip and MP costs to this man. Bail will be set high because flight risk.

In many states, his kind of crime are sentenced longer than manslaughters. Oh those US prosecutors assigned in bases probably have Harvard and Tokyo Univ LLD specializing in military and Japanese legal system. I'd bet they speak Japanese better than uneducated Japanese people.

Okinawan people have been very vocal on "Yankees Go Home:" in past.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

You seem to fancy yourself as a legal expert but as you say, you’re not a lawyer – so in the interest of accuracy, let me help you with your “understanding”…...

There have been several serious criminal incidents committed by SOFA against SOFA for many years on the base. How could the Japanese legal system prosecute every incident on a base? In the case of shoplifting, forgery, larceny, murder, assualt, drug trafficking, mail fraud, etc etc. the Japanese courts would be overloaded with people who could not speak japanese, a legal system completely different than the US.

There have been very few major criminal incidents involving US civilian personnel on base – this case we’re talking about is the only MEJA case in 2014 and there was only one other in 2013. Minor crimes are handled through the administrative action program that each base has – shoplifting, traffic offenses, etc, are addressed through community service, etc. The most serious admin action being barrment. Drug trafficking, mail fraud, etc., are prosecuted by the Japanese as almost all involve entry at a Japanese port. There are several US civilian workers currently serving time at the GOJ Yokosuka City prison for drug offenses after being convicted by a Japanese court – and these individuals keep their SOFA status while in jail and are visited by US military representatives. When they are discharged, they are barred from returning to Japan and sent back to the US..

The MEJA was most likely passed to give Japanese prosecutors more access to prosecute US citizens covered by the SOFA for henious crimes.

MEJA has nothing to do with Japanese prosecution – it provides a legal option to prosecute US citizens committing major crimes while stationed outside the US accompanying US military members. It was brought about by a child abuse case inside a US base involving all US personnel that the GOJ waived jurisdiction on – with no prosecution options, the suspect could have walked free. Same for the other example I gave with the high school students – other than admin barrment actions, that suspect could have walked free, had the Japanese declined jurisdiction.

In the case of SOFA vs SOFA, the US has jurisdiction. n cases where the right to exercise jurisdiction is concurrent the following rules shall apply:The military authorities of the United States shall have the primary right to exercise jurisdiction over members of the United States armed forces or the civilian component in relation to offenses solely against the property or security of the United States, or offenses solely against that person or property of another member of the United States armed forces or the civilian component or of a dependent; offenses arising out of any act or omission done in the performance of official duty.

The US does not always have jurisdiction for “SOFA on SOFA” - you are missing a very key statement on the para above – “in the performance of official duty”. This statement is key as it defines the “official duty clause”. Any criminal matter committed by a SOFA affiliated member, if in the performance of official duty, is automatically referred to US authorities. As an example, lets say the dependent in this case had struck and killed a local national civilian off-base, but he was employed by MWR and was driving a military owned vehicle – the US could file an official duty certificate with the GOJ and jurisdiction would automatically return to the US. The US may decide to waive jurisdiction and allow the Japanese to prosecute, as they did for a traffic accident involving a fatality 2 years ago.

Lincolnman is partially correct; bases can only do so much to civilians. This doesnt mean, however, they get away with crimes. What happens is they can be barred. Then what? They have no legal status in Japan. They are deported to their last legal residence, in this case MN.

Barrment is a administrative action, not criminal – deportation is likewise administrative in nature, not criminal,

There are US military in Japan. They fall under the SOFA and UCMJ, the military legal system. In most cases, the UCMJ does no apply to civilians.

The UCMJ does to apply to civilians period – except in limited instances during war or contingencies http://www.justice.gov/criminal/hrsp/docs/03-10-08dod-ucmj.pdf

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"seem to fancy yourself as a legal expert but as you say, you’re not a lawyer – so in the interest of accuracy, let me help you with your “understanding”

I dont fancy myself as anything, I really dont care about it ) Scroll up and read my last post: The real issue is why they let the nephew of a service member reside in japan and get SOFA sponsorship. What does this have to do with USFJ mission?

Many here clearly dont undersand SOFA. They confused "civilian component" with dependant. They also have the sponsor issue confused.

Either a US forces japan service member can sponsor, another SOFA member or a civilian component. Military members come under orders to Japan; the US Gov is their sponsor.

The young man is not a member of a civilian component, he is a dependant who worked in a P/T position for a civilian component, but the civilian component did not sponsor him, his uncle did. He could of been in trouble back home and his uncle became his guardian, as alphaape pointed out.

Everyone knows base barrment is an administrative action. My point is, if you cared to read it, is what next? Dump them out on the street? They have no legal residency in Japan, thus they are deported and picked up by Fed Marshals and placed into custody.

What experience do you have with these matters, may I ask?

If your such the legal guru, you could of cleared that right up for everybody. Instead you quoted something about the MEJA, which is unrelated to the subject, I guess trying to impress us with your legal googling.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

I dont fancy myself as anything, I really dont care about it ) Scroll up and read my last post:

Perhaps you missed it but you commented 15 times on this thread - and you say you really don't care?

Many here clearly dont undersand SOFA.

Yes, I know, I've read your 15 posts......

If your such the legal guru, you could of cleared that right up for everybody. Instead you quoted something about the MEJA, which is unrelated to the subject

Inaccurate again as this young man was detained in Japan and will be prosecuted back in Minn under MEJA.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

18 and 17?

Fine with sex.

Rape, no.

Better he contributes to her future welfare somehow rather than just giving him jail. Maybe he can work while in there and any proceeds go to her, that would make sense.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

It's an interesting question. What was Sherwood's status? Was he an employee of the Defense Department? Or was he just a dependent? Or was he both? There is ample evidence to indicate that U.S. forces, i.e., the Defense Department, regularly hire non-military members to fill non-military positions in a support capacity for said forces. Lifeguard is one such position, according to a number of web-based, U.S. military administered job search boards. In other words, Sherwood could very well have been what is defined as a civilian component of the U.S. armed forces. There are tons of such possible positions, truth be told.

It's all academic, however, since the SOFA leaves plenty of room for Japanese and US authorities to make arrangements that respect, complement, and benefit each side. In this case, whether this ridiculously stupid kid was employed by the US Defense Department or not, the SOFA allows for Japan to willingly abdicate any rights it enjoys towards prosecuting US citizens to US authorities.

I believe that is just what happened here. The US likely exercised its SOFA-enumerated right to request "sympathetic consideration" from Japanese authorities, who also very likely gave such consideration and relinquished their equal right try young Mr. Sherwood in the Japanese judicial system and let the US authorities handle it.

Which is how it should be in this sort of situation, IMO. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that every case of a parking ticket, fender-bender, or bar fight on a U.S. base involving U.S. servicemen and/or property not forwarded to Japanese authorities is some sort of gross insult to the Japanese. It's not.

For the Japanese legal system to want to take on a criminal case in which an American citizen assaults another American citizen, while an equivalent and fully capable US legal structure to deal with the issue is already in place -- a structure carefully considered and agreed upon by both Japan and the US, BTW -- well, it makes no practical sense.

If anyone feels like wading through a mind-numbing pile of legalize on the matter, I found some definitive and reliable information at the Cornell University Law School web site, where it posts the U.S. Code of Federal Regulation's (link) definition of a civilian component of the U.S. armed forces.

Also, Oxford University Press published a 2001 book titled, "The Handbook of the Law of Visiting Forces," Edited by Dieter Fleck It discusses in detail almost exactly what's being debated here, coming to a semi-conclusion that the rules and laws as outlined can indeed be very vague and open to interpretation.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Which is how it should be in this sort of situation, IMO. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that every case of a parking ticket, fender-bender, or bar fight on a U.S. base involving U.S. servicemen and/or property not forwarded to Japanese authorities is some sort of gross insult to the Japanese. It's not.

As usual, I agree 100%. There is no reason why the Japanese governmen would ever want to get involved in such incidents that occur on bases. There is nothing to be gained by it and a lot of extra problems that the Japanese government does not need. I think this is one case where a system is mutually beneficial.

p.s. In our other discussion, when I wrote 'please review', I in no way intended to suggest you had not read what was written before. I was just suggesting you look at it again. No hard feelings.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

No worries. I think we gel on so many other issue that the last discussion can safely be written off as a blip. No offense taken. Anymore.... ;-)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

"There have been very few major criminal incidents involving US civilian personnel on base – this case we’re talking about is the only MEJA case in 2014 and there was only one other in 2013."

This right here tells me your talking out your behind. Read any base MP blotter or pick up any Pacific Stars and Stripes; there are major criminal incidents all the time. I personally saw 1 person removed for embezzelment, another the marshalls came and took him away for back child support. Ive actually seen much worse, but wont comment on it here.

I asked you, what experience do you have with these matters? Are you JAG? SJA?

There is no mention that the MEJA was even applied in this case. You, like the other clown, are confused ) SOFA has been applied for decades to members of civilian components and dependants. MEJA is for mercs or other DOD types who fall in a grey area.

There is little grey area in Japan, the SOFA suffices.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

5

petalsMAY. 14, 2014 - 04:49PM JST "There have been very few major criminal incidents involving US civilian personnel on base – this case we’re talking about is the only MEJA case in 2014 and there was only one other in 2013." This right here tells me your talking out your behind. Read any base MP blotter or pick up any Pacific Stars and Stripes; there are major criminal incidents all the time. I personally saw 1 person removed for embezzelment, another the marshalls came and took him away for back child support. Ive actually seen much worse, but wont comment on it here.

Your problem is you think you know more than you really and do and obviously don't pay attention to details. As I cautioned you regarding the importance of the phrase "official duty", again, you overlook where I say "US Civilians". There are few major crimes involving US civilian subjects. Your examples prove your ignorance - US military personnel have no authority over US civilians - if they took any civilian away it was to escort them off the base only. Embezzlement could have been a MEJA case if it was serious enough but back child support? Never, and where are the base cops taking this civilian away to - base confinement? US civilians can't be confined in US military confinement facilities unless associated with a MEJA prosecution and approved by the geographic component commander.

There is no mention that the MEJA was even applied in this case. You, like the other clown, are confused ) SOFA has been applied for decades to members of civilian components and dependants. MEJA is for mercs or other DOD types who fall in a grey area.There is little grey area in Japan, the SOFA suffices.

You are fundamentally incorrect and uninformed on this case - it is a MEJA prosecution worked by US military authorities in Japan and the Federal Attorney and State Prosecutor in Minn. Authority was granted by USPACOM last week for the installation commander to detain the suspect pending him being escorted back to CONUS.

Give it a rest, you're 0 for 16 on this thread.......

2 ( +2 / -0 )

"You are fundamentally incorrect and uninformed on this case - it is a MEJA prosecution worked by US military authorities in Japan and the Federal Attorney and State Prosecutor in Minn. Authority was granted by USPACOM last week for the installation commander to detain the suspect pending him being escorted back to CONUS. "

Proof that its a MEJA case. Where? Your confused about MEJA and SOFA. you read something about MEJA and think it applies to this case.

You say there are few civllian crimes commited on the bases. Oh? so this guy was an exception? have you read the base MP police blotter? Stars and Stripes?

If an arrest warrant is issued in the states for back child support, yes, they can and will take an individual into custody It happened to an individual on a base here. marshalls came and arrested him. I dont think you have much experience in japan thus you are reaching )

Read this article, especially about the criminal part, so that you are more better informed about the SOFA. So far you havent provided anything but the MEJA, and notice the MEJA isnt mentioned once.

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp97.html

BTW, what experience do you have? Military? DOD? Contractor? Did you work in JAG or SJA? So far I havent seen anything to support your arguement except the unrelated MEJA you keep quoting. Are you a student or something? you keep avoiding my question.

At LFagain, As was mentioned time and time again, the guy was a P/T employee, and his employment has nothing to do with his SOFA status. It was his status as a dependant. Read the following job description carefully. RFT employees must already have SOFA before applying http://www.mccsiwakuni.com/about-mccs/career-opportunities/eligibility-of-applicants.aspx

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

Proof that its a MEJA case. Where? Your confused about MEJA and SOFA. you read something about MEJA and think it applies to this case.

It's a MEJA case - call the Kadena legal office and ask them if you're so sure it isn't......post the reply here for all of us to see.

You say there are few civllian crimes commited on the bases. Oh? so this guy was an exception? have you read the base MP police blotter? Stars and Stripes?

Yes, and OPREPs and base legal foreign criminal jurisdiction (FCJ) reports - they all show MAJOR SERIOUS (again read the words) crimes by civilians are few and far between.

If an arrest warrant is issued in the states for back child support, yes, they can and will take an individual into custody It happened to an individual on a base here. marshalls came and arrested him. I dont think you have much experience in japan thus you are reaching )

You're just dead wrong here - US military law enforcement personnel cannot "arrest" US civilians, they can only detain them. In your example, what do the PMO folks do after attesting him - lock him up at the brig? They can't do that without a MEJA case and the PACOM commanders approval.

Read this article, especially about the criminal part, so that you are more better informed about the SOFA. So far you havent provided anything but the MEJA, and notice the MEJA isnt mentioned once. http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp97.html

Yea, shame on the story for not mentioning it - again, let us know what the Kadena legal office tells you...

BTW, what experience do you have? Military? DOD? Contractor? Did you work in JAG or SJA? So far I havent seen anything to support your arguement except the unrelated MEJA you keep quoting. Are you a student or something? you keep avoiding my question.

Avoiding? This is an anonymous forum - I'm under no obligation to tell you anything about myself. And as for being a JAG or SJA, that's who you need to talk to to set you straight because you're woefully uninformed. I hope you're not a "barracks lawyer" because if they listen to you they're going to be getting a lot of troops into serious trouble....

Again, let us know what the Kadena JAG office tells you.....inquiring minds want to know.......

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Maybe Okinawan people will revitalize their " Yankee Go Home:" movement again? New headache for Commanding Officer's stuffs. If Okinawan people are successful, they will be blamed for US losing $2.1 billion a year income forever.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

This may be irrelavent, but why do some people these days find the need to record their sexual encounters on video? .....so disrespectful and so tacky. (and so illegal in this case)

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@Tahooch: Only perverts do that kind of acts.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@lincoln

ha ha, you found something about MEJA and thought it applied to this case, then was unable to prove that it did Tell me to call JAG..hee hee

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

ha ha, you found something about MEJA and thought it applied to this case, then was unable to prove that it did Tell me to call JAG..hee hee

Not going to call the Kadena JAG office? Why not? You've made 17 posts above trying to prove your factually incorrect point - and now you're giving up? OK, I'll take that as an admission that you were wrong, even if there was no apology included.........

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Of course it's a MEJA case. That's how civilians in situations like this are prosecuted.

"Sherwood is being tried in federal court, because under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, federal courts have jurisdiction over felonies committed abroad by certain people employed by--or accompanying--the U.S. military. The act applies to any offense punishable by more than one year in prison."

http://www.stripes.com/news/kadena-student-charged-with-raping-fellow-student-videotaping-incident-1.282815

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@lincoln legal man

The burden of proof is on you brotha, link us up! You the one making the claim

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

The burden of proof is on you brotha, link us up! You the one making the claim

Our good friend Sioux Chief just did above, if you may have missed it........

Here's another from the Dept of Justice just so it's clear......

http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/May/14-crm-495.html

What have you got to say, brotha?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What I have to say about is the question I asked you before

Where is your proof that this case was prosecuted under MEJA and To establish your crediblity in this case, what experience do you have when it comes to SOFA matters?

You run from both questions, then divert it to somebody else.

I can also copy/paste MEJA topics, check this:

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/85315/jurisdiction-sofa-criminal-cases-japan-now-clarified#.U3V9n3aLUit

“The problem with that is it is hard to work,” said Stevens. “All the witnesses and evidence are here, and you have to try to move it all to the states. Sometimes we’re unable to do that.” Additionally, a MEJA prosecution is reserved for serious felonies, said Stevens.

http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-civilian-charged-in-death-of-japanese-man-outside-yokosuka-bar-1.57202

Any time someone with SOFA status violates Japanese law on or off base, primary jurisdiction goes to the Japanese police — unless the offense is solely against the property or security of the United States, against a person or property of SOFA personnel or the offense arises while the person with SOFA status is on official duty.

Interesting. You said that I was uninformed. Seems the above statement says "against a person" Also, the article is about a Navy Civilian. Only one or two a year you say?

According to this, MEJA hasnt always worked and now there is CEJA. http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/testimony/2011/crm-testimony-110525.html

So, once again, was this young man prosecuted under MEJA?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Where is your proof that this case was prosecuted under MEJA and To establish your crediblity in this case, what experience do you have when it comes to SOFA matters?

Did you even read the link? It's a US Dept of Justice release saying that this individual is being prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA).

*According to the indictment, suspect, of White Bear Lake, Minnesota, an employee on Kadena Air Force Base and a dependent of a military member, sexually assaulted a minor on the base on or about Feb. 11, 2014, and filmed parts of the assault using his cellular phone.

The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act gives U.S. federal courts jurisdiction over felonies committed abroad by certain persons employed by or accompanying the U.S. Military. *

Just man up and admit you were wrong.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

why doesn't the article say that he and the girl are both in the same high school? the article says he's a part time worker but he's a high school student who works part time. the article is misleading in my opinion - it sounds like an adult forced the girl to drink alcohol but the fact was that the high school students were drinking together, the girl got very drunk and one of the boys raped her/filmed it.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

The only thing that says is a definition of the MEJA, it doesnt say they used it to prosecute him

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

The only thing that says is a definition of the MEJA, it doesn't say they used it to prosecute him

Come on, you're not serious, are you? They announce they are going to prosecute a US civilian overseas associated with the US military and then give the basis of the prosecution with a definition of MEJA in the next paragraph. Why even mention MEJA in the announcement if it isn't the basis of the prosecution?

Enough - it's clear you are too insecure to even admit you made a mistake, even when presented with the facts. Well, hope that works out for you - best wishes.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

5petals -

The only thing that says is a definition of the MEJA, it doesnt say they used it to prosecute him

Quote from Stars and Stripes -

Sherwood is being tried in federal court, because under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act, federal courts have jurisdiction over felonies committed abroad by certain people employed by — or accompanying — the U.S. military. The act applies to any offense punishable by more than one year in prison.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Look pal, when krungy said that "the US has no jurisdiction in this case" I showed clearly that it does. You, for some reason could not, and insisted on the MEJA, but that comes latter. What must be first established is jurisdiction.You mistakenly informed me that the US only has jurisdiction when SOFA members are in their official capacity, but as this following clearly shows, you are incorrect "Any time someone with SOFA status violates Japanese law on or off base, primary jurisdiction goes to the Japanese police — unless the offense is solely against the property or security of the United States, against a person or property of SOFA personnel or the offense arises while the person with SOFA status is on official duty." The whole arguement was, who has jurisdiction. Well, since the US is prosecuting him, I guess they do! The MEJA doesnt enter until jurisdiction has been established. Granted, was unaware of the MEJA, the CEJA, or any of the other acronymns the US gov comes up with yearly, but its unrelated anyhow; the topic discussed was who has jurisdiction.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Look pal, when krungy said that "the US has no jurisdiction in this case" I showed clearly that it does. You, for some reason could not, and insisted on the MEJA, but that comes latter. What must be first established is jurisdiction.You mistakenly informed me that the US only has jurisdiction when SOFA members are in their official capacity, but as this following clearly shows, you are incorrect "Any time someone with SOFA status violates Japanese law on or off base, primary jurisdiction goes to the Japanese police — unless the offense is solely against the property or security of the United States, against a person or property of SOFA personnel or the offense arises while the person with SOFA status is on official duty." The whole arguement was, who has jurisdiction. Well, since the US is prosecuting him, I guess they do! The MEJA doesnt enter until jurisdiction has been established. Granted, was unaware of the MEJA, the CEJA, or any of the other acronymns the US gov comes up with yearly, but its unrelated anyhow; the topic discussed was who has jurisdiction.

Not a very graceful or elegantly worded admission of a mistake, but we'll take it........

0 ( +1 / -1 )

So go ahead and admit you were wrong ) You had holes all in your arguement. I left the SOFA scene a long time ago and have since moved on to bigger and better things. If your still chasing that, dude, it sucks to be you )

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

So go ahead and admit you were wrong ) You had holes all in your arguement. I left the SOFA scene a long time ago and have since moved on to bigger and better things. If your still chasing that, dude, it sucks to be you )

Well, let's just summarize before we close out....

I said that this individual was being prosecuted under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA). You said;

Instead you quoted something about the MEJA, which is unrelated to the subject,

There is no mention that the MEJA was even applied in this case.

Proof that its a MEJA case. Where? Your confused about MEJA and SOFA. you read something about MEJA and think it applies to this case.

ha ha, you found something about MEJA and thought it applied to this case, then was unable to prove that it did Tell me to call JAG..hee hee

Where is your proof that this case was prosecuted under MEJA?

And as has been shown by myself and numerous other posters above, and as you somewhat ungracefully acknowledge, it clearly is a MEJA case.

Anyway, best wishes.......

http://lightshouse.org/lights-blog/why-its-smart-to-let-toxic-people-have-the-last-word#axzz31l3FRtfn

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Still has nothing to do with the SOFA and its jurisdiction, and I still contend your confusing jurisdiction. The SOFA clearly established jusidiction as he was the dependant of a servicemember who was employed P/T at a civilian component.

The MEJA does not enter until he enters the US. We still dont know if all the evidence has been transfered, from Japan, to the courts in the USA. It seems to be much more complicated on that end.

Anyway, good luck chasing your SOFA dream..lol

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

St. Paul: Warren E. Burger Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse Minneapolis: United States Courthouse Duluth: Gerald W. Heaney Federal Building & U.S. Courthouse & Customhouse Fergus Falls: Edward J. Devitt United States Courthouse and Federal Building Locate a Courthouse

@5petals: if all the evidence has been transferred, from Japan, to the courts in the USA. It seems to be much more complicated on that end.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Sherwood is from White Bear Lake, Minn? He is already indited so he will be handled by one of above court. Which one? It has nothing to do with MEJSA or SOFA now.

@5petals: Are you kidding? Evidence would be TRANSMITTED from Japan to Minn. by on-line, Original will not be sent by airplane or ship. It is not that kind era.

I

1 ( +1 / -0 )

@toshiko,

Agreed. SOFA and jurisdiction, was the no brainer part that most here got wrong. Read legal guru Lincolns first post on this topic and we can see where he only got it half right:

"Regarding jurisdictional issues in this case, even though the incident occurred within a US facility or area, the fact that the victim and suspect are civilian means Japan could exercise primary jurisdiction. I'm sure the Japanese Police and Public Prosecutor were advised of the crime and subsequently waived jurisdiction, as no Japanese nationals were involved (this is typical). As such, the case could then be prosecuted by the US under the Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA), which allows federal and state officials to prosecute crimes committed by US citizens overseas."

But then we get a statement from the JAG, "Any time someone with SOFA status violates Japanese law on or off base, primary jurisdiction goes to the Japanese police — unless the offense is solely against the property or security of the United States, against a person or property of SOFA personnel or the offense arises while the person with SOFA status is on official duty."

One SOFA member commited an offense against another SOFA member. No brainer, US has jurisdiction.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@5petalsMAY. 15, 2014 - 07:06PM JST

@toshiko,

Agreed. SOFA and jurisdiction, was the no brainer part that most here got wrong. Read legal guru Lincolns first post on this topic and we can see where he only got it half right:

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

????? Are you agreeing something I never wrote ??????

1 ( +1 / -0 )

agreeing that the SOFA issue has already been dealt with

Online submission of evidence...hard to send a witness through a wire..lol

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Witnesses: First. Court, Defence Attorney, or Prosecution attorney has to issue Subpoena to attend court hearing but in this case, he is not in Minn. So. affirmative of witness testimonial will be sent online. with Signatures with handlers and witness, This procedure is old. In USA, often video testimonies are used. Have you attended to USA trials????

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I cannot believe how irresponsible americans are as they are in a foreign country. It's a minority but they seem to think they are above the law

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Why does just about any article about the US military in Japan on JT, no matter what the subject, always have to bring up past offenses or have some sort of anti-base spin/mention the anti-base crowd?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@Tosh kun

gotcha but according to this link, the evidence must be transfered. Linclon is right, they used the MEJA to move this case, but I disagree with Frudgy, its not the SOFA that is difficult, its the MEJA. I had to go back and read what the DOJ says about it, still cant understand for what cases it applies too.

http://www.dvidshub.net/news/85315/jurisdiction-sofa-criminal-cases-japan-now-clarified#.U3V9n3aLUit

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/pr/testimony/2011/crm-testimony-110525.html

But as I said before, while the law might be interesting, what the real issue here is why there are so many dependants and whats their contribution to USFJ mission. Of all the posters here, I think atrueokiniwan is the only one that really hit the mark.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Why does just about any article about the US military in Japan on JT, no matter what the subject, always have to bring up past offenses or have some sort of anti-base spin/mention the anti-base crowd?

Because, even though U.S. military members actually have a lower crime rate than Japanese people in Japan, they're right and everyone else is dumb.

-3 ( +0 / -2 )

@bfg4987

this link sums it up quite nicely

http://www.jpri.org/publications/workingpapers/wp97.html

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

@5petals: But as I said before, while the law might be interesting, what the real issue here is why there are so many dependants and whats their contribution to USFJ mission. Of all the posters here, I think atrueokiniwan is the only one that really hit the mark.

;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;;

Tokyo Court verdict of illegality of US bases were overturned by J Supreme Court. So bases stay. When Japanese annual payment hit more than $3 billion, Japan began reducing payment . Last year 2.1 billion, (empathy payment) This annual payment include dependents cost and also base employees payrolls and other cost to keep base in Japan. To stop further reduction in May Shapiro demanded Japan keep paying 2.1 billion a year so US can keep having current base expenditure level. Good income to USA. But as Abe advisors have been planning about how to increase JSDF, nobody knows what will happen to this huge payment to USA and USA bases'future. .

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@toshiko: The reason there is so many dependents on Okinawa is because of what you call the empathy payment Before the Japanese Govt, started paying a large share of the cost of the U.S. bases Military dependents were limited to high ranked NCO's and Officers. Once the Japanese govt. started paying a lot of the costs, the military started allowing even the lowest enlisted ranks to start bringing their dependents. On Okinawa there are 2 high schools, 2 Jr. high schools, 6 elementary schools and more pre-schools and day care centers than you can count. Most of those facilities were built by the Japanese Taxpayers. There are large bases on Okinawa that contain nothing but Military Family Housing because of all of the dependents. Most of those houses were built by the Japanese taxpayers and they all have central air conditioning. Even half of Kadena air Base is taken up by Family Housing. And the military insists on having an American style quality of life which means golf courses, football fields, softball fields, tennis courts, etc. The only problem is that for the military to have and enjoy that quality of life means the Okinawan people must endure a lower quality of life.

IMO dependents contribute nothing to the mission but the military will argue that it is good for troop morale to have their dependents with them but my opinion is that if a person cannot stand to be separated from their families then they have no business being in the military. I agree with @5petals that Okinawa should be an unaccompanied tour because that would free up at least 50% of the base land without affecting the actual military capabilities of the bases. Okinawa is too small of an island and the population of Okinawa continues to increase and these massive bases that were laid out at a time when the population of Okinawa was a third of what it is now can no longer be sustained. The problem is that the Japanese Govt. cannot stand up the U.S. and say these things to them. They just say yes to whatever the U.S wants because they don't really care about the quality of life of the Okinawan people and neither does the U.S.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

"IMO dependents contribute nothing to the mission but the military will argue that it is good for troop morale to have their dependents with them but my opinion is that if a person cannot stand to be separated from their families then they have no business being in the military"

This is an excellent point, trueokiniwan. At one time, the USMC did not allow dependants, even for senior personel at Camp Hansen, Schwab etc. There were a few down at Foster. It was Commadant Mundy who asked Congress to allow Sgts and above to get married, but that was shot down as inhumane. Squad bay style living conditions were deemed unsanitary by a know nothing guru, and dorm style barracks replaced them.

The USMC gets allot of bashing by the other services, but in reality, they are the ones who survive on the lowest budget and could be moved to ships offshore. The fixed and rotary wing assets could be consolidated to Kadena.

I personally never understood the whole Okinawan occupation, golf courses, civilian goofballs who homesteaded there for years, massive amounts of tax money to suport their existance.

Okinawa could be a thriving economy; its location is supreme for tourism, FTZ, casinos, deep water port, etc. It has a large English speaking population with many decades of exposure to foriegners. Xenophobic mainlanders could allow multinationals to operate there near Naha, while keeping the north part for agriculture.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

@trueokinawan, and 5petals: Okinawan bases do not sound like they are there to protect Japan from China or N Korea, If so, why there are luxury facilities for dependents and let dependents live in Okinawa?

Ambassador Kennedy visited Okinawa a little while ago. She probably found bases are not to protect Japan from Japan's neighbors.

No wonder Japan inc. have been helping other Asian neighbors instead of Okinawa. If they make their factories in Okinawa, they have to make luxury golf course, housing, etc.

Sorry for Okinawan. You are stuck with bases. Bases even employ non-Okinawans,

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

@trueokinawan.

100% agree. You see allot on the news about dishonesty in local governments etc, but I have never seen anybody cover what you just mentioned.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If so, why there are luxury facilities for dependents and let dependents live in Okinawa?

I am pretty sure dependents join US servicemen on and off non-war zone bases all over the world.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The luxury facilities are there for accompanied tours. The young man mentioned in this article was accompanying his uncle. Some get command sponsorship, others are non accompanied, meaning they dont get to use base housing and live on the economy but they can still marry and use the base.

Recruiters can sell this to a potential recruit; they can bring their spouse or family member and recieve cost of living allowance, housing, and a host of other benefits.

There was a time, and I still think its the same for USMC combat units, where nobody was allowed to sponsor a family member I am from the old school days, maybe its changed. As trueokinawian stated, this is the best option. More dependants brings more civilian component support, more crime, more wasted tax money, more construction and more burden on the Okinawan people. They begin to think they are entilted to something they really arent, and anytime you pay somebody whether they work or not, it breeds arrogance and other bad traits

The bases need to be moved to southern kyushu and the island should be developed and returned to the Okinawans.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@slumdog: There is no other place in the world where massive U.S. Military bases take up so much of the best land as in Okinawa and Military Family Housing, dependent schools and leisure facilities take up a more than half of that land.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

I was just pointing out that US bases all over the world have similar facilities. There are at least 264 golf courses on US bases all over the world.

While your topic of conversation is a conversation worth having, it is really not relevant to this conversation. This is about a crime on the base. It is not a discussion about how much land the US bases use.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Oh that's right, I remember why every article on JT has an anti military slant, look at the audience!

Thanks for reminding me toshiko, 5petals, and a"true"okinawan.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Underage for alcohol, both of them. The title is misleading.

There's a good chance the base age for alcohol was 21 given historical issues with the bases there. However, it's fairly common for US bases to have a drinking age of 18 even though the local law might be 21. It's at the discretion of the base commander and prevailing agreements they have with the local government.

Frankly, I'm not sure why anyone would want the J-Cops to handle this. Age of majority in Japan is 20 combined with Japan's notoriously weak rape laws and even weaker prosecution record. It's unlikely much would come from this case if it was handled in the Japanese courts outside of SOFA employee getting deported.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

"Oh that's right, I remember why every article on JT has an anti military slant, look at the audience!

Thanks for reminding me toshiko, 5petals, and a"true"okinawa."

Go back and read my post. I said a reduction in dependants, as trueokinawan also stated. Nobody is bashing the US military personel. There is something wrong when a third of an island is occupied and its the poorest prefecture in Japan. What, you want us to pretend its ok?

"It's unlikely much would come from this case if it was handled in the Japanese courts outside of SOFA employee getting deported."

Could not be legally handled by the Japanese courts. It was an offense committed by one SOFA against another inside the base. Japan has no jurisdiction.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@slumdog: I agree this is a topic worth discussion and I also agree this is not the thread to discuss it on. My original question was why the nephew of a serviceman was allowed to be govt. sponsored as a Military dependent with all of the benefits that it brings especially in an overseas location like Okinawa.

@Stephen Jez: I am not bashing Military personnel, I am not even for the removal of all of the Military bases from Okinawa as I recognize the legitimate defense needs. I believe they are just as many if not more pro base posters on JT and many of them are quick to bash the Okinawan people without having ever set foot inside a U.S. base on Okinawa. My first encounter with U.S. bases was in 1967 as a 19 year old. I have been inside every U.S. base in Okinawa except for missile sites. When I post, I post what I have actually seen and have knowledge of with the intention of informing people who may not know the reality of the situation on Okinawa.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

I'm all for lessening the burden on Okinawa and I agree (forgot who mentioned it) that some of the bases should be moved and I agree with whomever mentioned moving some to Kyushu. However, removing the dependents of service members serving over seas is not the answer. Do you want a drop in moral and a spike in crime off base? Then by all means, go ahead and ship all dependents back to the US. I guess you'd have some new crimes off base to cry about instead of the old ones that happened all those years ago.

@atrueokinawan: If you have been on island for that long then you'd already know that removing dependents would be a bad idea. So yes, you are speaking about what you have seen, not what you know, two totally different perspectives.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Please show proof where having more dependants equals an increase in morale. All it does is add more complexity to the mission.. Single service members are required to clean barracks, muster and perform other activities related to mission after working hours, but married personel can quickly escape to base housing and assume a life as a civilian. The can "create" all sorts of excuses, like wife pregnancy etc to escape from physical training or field exercises. It creates an atmosphere of jealously and young servicemembers get married to escape barracks life and other duties. Most of these marriages end in divorce once the member seperates from the military. The single servicemember also quickly realizes that if they get married, they can get a number of benefits and pay increase. Other single service members of the same rank do not get even half of what the married person would, creating more immbalance. The married servicemember is seen as more mature, when in reality he/she has just manipulated the system in order to get more money and escape from duties. Then there is the issue of support for the dependant. Once a dependant arrives on island, they will want to work. There are limited opportunites for such people. Schools and stores must be provided as their kids cannot attend Japanese schools and the local food is not acceptable for them. Single servicemembers eat at mess halls, but dependants must have food flown in from the states. The logistics to support these people is enormous. As trueokinawain stated, if you joined the military just to get married or to bring your spouse along, you joined for the wrong reason.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

IMO this certainly doesn't count as an "underage" situation. The problem here is whether it was consensual or not and can be counted as sexual assault.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Misleading headline, as usual. He did the crime, now do the time. But, he isn't and wasn't a military employee. He is a civilian contract worker. All non Military workers in Japan are paid by the landlord - the Japanese gov.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

You are right, the headline "indicts US base worker is misleading. "

He wasnt a base worker in the true sense of the word; he was a dependant. The headline is just to grab attention, typical of the media

You are incorrect however, on who paid his salary. He was paid by the US government, or a non appropriated fund entity.

GOJ only pays Japanese or ordinarly residing in Japan people (mostly Japanese) MLC/IHA. MLC are prohibited from becoming SOFA, unless they marry a servicemember or SOFA member latter...an interesting exception.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

If the assaulter was under SOFA status and the woman wasn't then the Japanese Government has jurisdiction over the case. If both were BOTH INDIVIDUALS were SOFA sponsered then the Japanese Government has NO JURISDICTION over the case. It doesn't matter if it was on base or not, what matters if it involves a Japanese National... For the Japanese to have jurisdiction over the offense the at least one of individuals has to be JAPANESE CITIZEN!!! This article doesn't specify what nationality the woman was. Read THE SOFA RIGHTS!!!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Please show proof where having more dependants equals an increase in morale. All it does is add more complexity to the mission.. Single service members are required to clean barracks, muster and perform other activities related to mission after working hours, but married personel can quickly escape to base housing and assume a life as a civilian. The can "create" all sorts of excuses, like wife pregnancy etc to escape from physical training or field exercises. It creates an atmosphere of jealously and young servicemembers get married to escape barracks life and other duties. Most of these marriages end in divorce once the member seperates from the military. The single servicemember also quickly realizes that if they get married, they can get a number of benefits and pay increase. Other single service members of the same rank do not get even half of what the married person would, creating more immbalance. The married servicemember is seen as more mature, when in reality he/she has just manipulated the system in order to get more money and escape from duties. Then there is the issue of support for the dependant. Once a dependant arrives on island, they will want to work. There are limited opportunites for such people. Schools and stores must be provided as their kids cannot attend Japanese schools and the local food is not acceptable for them. Single servicemembers eat at mess halls, but dependants must have food flown in from the states. The logistics to support these people is enormous. As trueokinawain stated, if you joined the military just to get married or to bring your spouse along, you joined for the wrong reason.

You ask for proof but then make up the most inane example of "single service members getting jealous of married service members getting out of certain duties" and then your "most of them get divorced anyways" gem. You're really grasping at straws here. This is why I usually don't entertain the anti base types on this site. They talk a big game but at the end of the day they really have next to no clue about how the military or the people in it.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Apparently, I am not the only one who shares this "old school" mentality,

http://www.g2mil.com/married_teenage_warriors.htm

Also genius, nobody is 'anti base" or anti military here. We are only suggesting that there be less dependants and base reduction on the island The island isnt yours, or mine, it belongs to the citizens of Okinawa.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Page not found

But yes, your original analogy (jealous single guys/gals) holds no water. Maybe you yourself are jealous of people who have families on island, I don't know. But that's no reason to project your insecurities onto others ;)

I agree, there should be less of a burden on Okinawa, like I previously stated. However, removing all dependents and forbidding people from bringing their families is not the answer. Even if that did happen (it probably never will) then you'd be here on JT complaining about all the support facilities on base/post going to waste and how the GOJ wasted their money building them.

Do you know why the "old school" mentality of "no families" existed? No, it wasn't because of some absurd idea such as "you don't need/deserve a family" in the military. It is because there wasn't sufficient facilities on island to support said families. That's why there are "unaccompanied only" tours in the military. Either the area is dangerous or there aren't enough support facilities to support military members family, it's as simple as that. Okinawa has those facilities hence why military members are allowed to bring their families, pretty simple really.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

http://www.g2mil.com/married_teenage_warriors.htm

Pretty simple you say? Back in the day of squad bays and unaccompanied tours, times were simple. We were more cohesive and it was the way the military should of been. More recreation facilities and dependants is not the solution. The money saved could be used for better weapons, pay increases for single serviceman, free college and vocational training for active duty members etc. If they dont make above 80% on the exams then they pay. There are many other alternatives to having masses of dependants and what it takes to support them; yes, this is simple to understand, its a no brainer.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Another dead link and grasping at straws again.

If you seriously think that more unaccompanied tours and prohibiting single service members from getting married is an acceptable answer to budgetary problems then you really do have no clue. So many things the military can do to save money and you come up with this?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

everyone giving him hate need to stop, none of you know the full story and when they say rape they mean under age not forcing someone to do something against there will...

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites