Introduction
Being a brigadier general, a lot of interest surrounded his case. People were curious on how the court would handle a case against the former U.S commander in Afghanistan. He was facing charges of sodomy, adultery; general social misconduct to mention the least. Jeffrey Sinclair was required (by the court) to pay $20,000 and an additional $4,157 as restitution fee. All this happened amidst constant concerns being raised by the public on how well (or otherwise) the military performs in as far as addressing harassment targeting women and sex crimes are concerned (Zoroya, 2014).
Ethical issue
Brigadier general Jeffrey Sinclair is a high ranking individual in the U.S military. He has a wife and children. It is required that he serves both his country and family with all the respect and faithfulness they deserve, literary. The fact that he offered threats to women subordinates that refused to meet his demands is quite unethical. In fact, it is not only demeaning to the military, but also his family in general. That a man of his rank can indulge in such acts, goes to speak a lot on how much of these acts take place within the military (Whitlock, 2014).
Relevant Facts to the Issue
The case was filled with a lot of controversy despite the fact that Jeffrey pleaded guilty to most of the allegations. For instance, an army captain was supposed to provide the court with her testimony. As it is, this was not going to happen as she was barred from providing further details on the same. Also, reports have shown that only about 10% of sexually-related cases are reported where the military is concerned. Threats have also been shown to be the order of the day with those up in the hierarchy serving their subordinates with intimidating statements (Oppel, 2014).
Analysis
Power has been shown to prevent most people from realising the justice they so deserve. Having to report one’s superior for sexual assault is quite a brave (and risky) move. One is not aware of what could happen; their job is literary on the line. In this case, for example, the accuser was prevented from giving her full account on the issue. The ruling of the court has been in some instances been referred to as a “laughable punishment”. Given the weight of the case at hand, a sterner judgement would have been in order. Preconceived murder was also part of the case where the General had warned one of his victims against letting others know about their affair; going against this would have resulted to her death and that of her family. Such blackmail should attract heavier judgement (Biesecker, 2014).
His Wife
Naturally, such an action is bound to embarrass the wife (and family). This is a man who is supposed to cement their relationship with faithfulness and trust given he is a public figure. Nevertheless, in an interesting turn of events, the wife supported him at all times. As a matter of fact, she has openly said that she thinks he is innocent, and such allegations cannot (and will not) affect their relationship; whether this is a staged act or not remains to be seen (Zoroya, 2014).
Obligation to his Family
After the conclusion of his case, the General owes his family a lot of gratitude for standing with him through this very disgracing moment. Also, he has to prove that it was a lie by improving his relationship with them. This will essentially prove that he can be trusted (Whitlock, 2014).
Ethical violation
A lot of ethics have been undermined in as far as the case is concerned. These dented issues directly concern a lot of parties including his family, the military and also the courts. These have been greatly affected in one way or the other owing to the case against the General.
References
BIESECKER, J. (2014, March 20). Arny General Case. Yahoo! News. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://news.yahoo.com/army-general-fined-reprimanded-sex-case- 142029054.html
Oppel, R. (2014, March 20). Sexual Misconduct Case Ends With No Jail Time for General. The New York Times. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/21/us/general-sinclair-is-sentenced.html?_r=0
Whitlock, C. (2014, March 21). Disgraced Army general, Jeffrey A. Sinclair, gets $20,000 fine, no jail time. Washington Post. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/disgraced-army-general- jeffrey-a-sinclair-receives-fine-no-jail-time/2014/03/20/c555b650-b039-11e3-95e8- 39bef8e9a48b_story.html
Zoroya, G. (2014, March 20). General avoids jail time in case involving affair with subordinate. USA Today. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from Whitlock, C. (2014, March 21). Disgraced Army general, Jeffrey A. Sinclair, gets $20,000 fine, no jail time. Washington Post. Retrieved March 22, 2014, from http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/disgraced-army-general- jeffrey-a-sinclair-receives-fine-no-jail-time/2014/03/20/c555b650-b039-11e3-95e8- 39bef8e9a48b_story.html
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/20/sinclair-general-affair- subordinate-army-sexual-assault/6557033/
