Former Navy Chief Plea: What Should Punishment Be?

Naval Base Kitsap’s former top enlisted man pleaded guilty to attempted child rape Thursday morning in Kitsap County Superior Court.

Arrested by Bremerton Police just more than a month ago, Edward E. Scott, then the Navy’s local Command Master Chief, was caught in a sex sting at a local hotel before dawn March 16.

But what does the guilty plea mean?


Scott had been chatting for about at least a month with what he thought was a mother of a 12-year-old twin boy and girl, and had arranged a meeting for sex with the trio, according to police reports.

What he didn’t know was the “mother” was an undercover agent working with the Internet Crimes Against Children task force, assigned to look for child predators in a chat room called “fetish 12.” Scott was arrested by Bremerton Police detectives near the hotel’s lobby, and found in possession of 3 condoms.

Prosecutors will recommend jail time — 90 months to be exact. His defense attorneys will recommend treatment known as a “SSOSA” which would allow Scott to miss most of the jail time if he complies with the program, also according to prosecutors.

A judge will ultimately make the decision. But where do you stand?

81 thoughts on “Former Navy Chief Plea: What Should Punishment Be?

  1. I am a United States Sailor.
    I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America and I will obey the orders of those appointed over me.
    I represent the fighting spirit of the Navy and those who have gone before me to defend freedom and democracy around the world.
    I proudly serve my country’s Navy combat team with Honor, Courage and Commitment.
    I am committed to excellence and the fair treatment of all.

    That was the sailor’s creed. Something which all sailors have had to recite since boot camp. We do not sign it, however it is something we are told by our superiors that we must live up to. The fact that he was one of the, for the lack of a better term, men telling us to recite it on a regular basis implies that he would know it by now.

    As for his guilt with the UCMJ I can think of Articles: 80-attempts, 92-Failure to obey order or regulation, 134-2-adultery, 134-27-indecent acts with another, just to name a few.

    While I do feel some sympathy for his family, as the law stands they don’t deserve anything. It has been mentioned that the wife is the motivational force behind many great men. Where are the tears for those wives who got nothing when their husbands didn’t do anything wrong. His wife has served her husband well. What Ed Scott did was unforgivable and he should be dealt with accordingly. What did his wife do to prevent it? If she is to take the accolades when he does good, she can deal with the fallout from his transgressions. However this is only my opinion.

  2. FED UP:
    “What did his wife do to prevent it?” How on God’s green earth is this any of her fault? How can you even think such a horrible thought? Oh wait, Ed mentioned right after he was arrested that he blamed (his wife) because they were having marital problems. No matter what goes on behind closed doors can that push a spouse into the sick-minded actions that Ed tried to fulfill. How can a spouse prevent this? There’s no way! Ed is 43 years old and not a child that needs to be supervised 24/7. Hey FED UP lets also blame his parents, society, and/or the Navy. My husband and I “PREVENT” our child from entering sites on the internet, but we don’t “PREVENT” each other. We’re adults and we make our decisions. It’s sad and actually scary that you and Ed feel that it’s someone else’s fault and can’t step up and take responsibility for your own actions.

  3. CMC spouse: Navy Marine Corps Intranet (the civilian folks running all IT services for the Navy and Marine Corps) When this goes to court martial it will all be based on facts/evidence (not a CO’s mast) and what crime Ed committed to get thrown in jail(believe me if paperwork is not in order – AIS agreement on file, he will not be held accountable). His buddies will show up and and tell the members of the court martial how Ed was a stand up guy until this incident- for 20+ years. Many Puget Sound active duty and family members, including myself will be disappointed with the outcome of his court martial (leniency) primarily because of the freakish nature of this whole episode by one selfish person trying to exploit children and on Navy time.

  4. CMC Spouse
    I never said that what happened was the wife’s fault. I believe that what Ed did was his fault. I have taken responsibility for all of my actions throughout my career. I am just trying to say that his wife has not done anything to earn a retirement. I don’t hear anyone crying over the wives of those sailors who ate their way out of the navy or got kicked out over drugs. As far as it goes I do not blame her for her husband’s actions. However with that said I can’t give her credit for his successes either. I never blame my wife for my screw ups and she never takes credit for when I do good at work. We keep the 2 worlds separate. I believe that it is a tragedy what happened and that Ed Scott should be punished to the fullest extent of the law both military and civil. However I don’t see how compensating the wife for a bad choice in husbands would be fair to the rest of the wives out there who suffer for the choices their criminal husbands make. Isn’t that why marriage is a partnership? Lord knows my wife has to deal with my choices and no one cries for her. Of course I choose to live in the bounds of the law.

  5. Fedup,

    While your points about the possible punishment from the Navy may be correct and warranted and your statement about the Navy Creed is commendable, I will state the following.

    If you are of the male gender and had you made that statement about his wife not doing anything to prevent it in my physical presence, I would have knocked you on your (butt)! His wife has NEVER taken credit for the good things he did or accomplished in his career. And to in some way imply that she knew this would happen and could have prevented this is absolutely ludicrous. As a sailor, I have always believed that our spouses deserved every bit of credit for the good things we did during our service because without our spouse’s support we would never have accomplished what we did. As for our mistakes and missteps, however grave, it is our decision and ours alone. We have no one to blame but ourselves.

    As for her not “deserving anything” The words should be “not entitled”. She “deserves” to get anything he gets because of his actions and he would probably give that up freely. Whether he gets anything but a BCD at whatever level is not up to you and or anyone on this board. It is ultimately up to the Navy.

    Bottom line is what Ed did, or THOUGHT about doing, as unthinkable as it was, it was his decision and his alone and he will live with the consequences of those actions. Unfortunately so will his family. This incident has taught me one thing, we all think this will never happen to some one we know or even a family member. Until it does. It puts this entire topic into a whole new and unsettling perspective.

    And one final thought, I have known this family for a very long time and I assure you that he is in no way trying to “get out” of anything. He will accept his punishment and get help. As for the family they have a huge support group of friends and family to help them.

  6. I have been retired for some time now, so please bear with these questions.
    Scott has been in the Kitsap County Jail for awhile now with an additional amount of time left to go. Has he been put on Administrative Leave and if so,when will he stop being paid while on Administrative Leave? He should be well over 1/2 way through any Leave time that he had accrued. Once that Leave time is gone, then he should go into a Unauthorized Absence status? And at that point, will he no longer be paid? Is that correct?
    When and how will the Navy take their judicial action, and what action will that be? I pray that this be a the strongest Court Martial, and that it happens QUICKLY! At minimum, Reduction to E1, and a BCD. Whatever it takes so that he is NEVER entitled to receive the tax dollars that I pay in the form of Retirement pay.
    Did this Guilty Plea make it so that he can keep his retirement? For those of us that have Retired HONORABLY, how can we be sure that this scumbag won’t walk away with just a slap on the wrist? 90 Months in a Treatment program is a JOKE, and an insult to the community in which he lives.
    SCPO Ret, I don’t think that Ed will EVER own up to just how unforgivable his actions have been. The Plea Deal is evidence of that. And one last question, has his wife left him yet? If not, WHY? I would only pray that his wife divorces him and takes the house, the boat, the Rv, the vehicles, along with anything else and leaves him feeling as empty as I am sure she is feeling right now. Staying with him would be her greatest mistake!

  7. This whole issue is being blow out of control, at least compared to other cases in the State of Washington under similar circumstances. Recently, even in King County, a county official pleaded guilty and received far less that Ed Scott is facing. Why should Ed be treated differently than a county official?

    Research on the subject has been proven over and over again that sending sexual offenders to prison is not the solution, they need counseling. This reduces the rearrest rate to 7%. The current rearrest rate for sexual offenders is 17%, which is below the rate for other criminals. Ed Scott will be a productive member of society once again, and I want him to succeed.

    Send him away for 90 months? You are kidding yourselves if you really believe this is the right punishment for his crime!

    Some of you talk about tax payer money, what do you think you would be doing if he went to prison? Yes, your tax money does support prison. Under SOSSA, the cost is 1/5 the amount it would be to send him away. AND he is required to pay for the counseling and other costs while in the program. Based on research, this is the right course of action.

    Ed is not the villain many are trying to portray, he made a poor choice and he is paying the price. You all talk about the plea deal as if you were a part of the discussions. Ed pleaded guilty not out of any deal, but because he had no chance at a fair trial. You all are ready to send him away based on inaccurate reporting. Even this paper has made mistakes, first they reported he had 3 boxes of condoms, and then it was 3 condoms. This paper also reports the children were a male and female, but according to court records, this is not the case, either the paper or Bremerton Police can not get things straight. And there are no conversations about the sting or the entrapment by the police. You have no idea what happened in those emails/online chat, yet you want to send him away for 90 months. I am sure any ethical dilemma you face also warrants a 90 month sentence if you make the wrong choice.

    To an ‘old friend’ your comments do not sound as if you are an old friend as you call yourself. If you were a friend, you would stand by the 24+ years of outstanding service Ed Scott completed. You would know how Ed Scott has helped his fellow service members, even when he had nothing to gain. And your comment on his wife, her decision to stay or leave is her decision, not yours. You say staying with him would be her biggest mistake? I think her biggest mistake would be calling you a friend! Maybe you should look at yourself and see what it means to be an ‘old friend.’

    I for one continue to call myself a friend of Ed Scott, and his wife. While I do not agree with his choice, I will stand by him and ask that he gets all the help he needs.

  8. SCPO RET.,
    OF COURSE Ed has taken full responsibility. He has no choice. If this hadn’t been a sting, he would have followed through with his indecency and would have continued with it probably until he got caught. He took the easy way out. He is going to counseling because he HAS to as part of his plea deal.

    Why did he wait until NOW to plead guilty? He had that chance when he first went to court! Now he has a deal to get him less time in the joint.

    Bottom line here is, he hasn’t taken any responsibility here…he is only sorry because he got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.

    If that had been YOUR child he solicited, I don’t think Scott would be alive today.
    But since it was a sting he got himself into, he is “owning up” to his poor judgment and actions.

  9. For an old friend,

    He admitted guilt. It is up to the judge whether he goes to treatment in lieu of the maximum jail time all of which will be based on many factors.

    As for you question of his wife’s intentions. If you are an old friend as your moniker indicates then you should know the answer, if you are not then it is none of your business.

  10. To 1LT, I don’t care if there is 25,30,50, or 100 years of what you call Outstanding Service here, discussing ANY sexual acts with children negates anything good of that service. He was in a position of Authority and Trust. He abused his position, his authority, and ALL trust that his fellow sailors have for him. If you want to call that Outstanding Service, I don’t want to know what you would call Average. Perhaps a reminder that our children are our future…why would anyone support someone who wants to harm the children? Having sex with children is EVIL, IMMORAL, and destroys any friendship that existed. Enought said to you on this subject.

    To SCPO, Ret, maybe you are in the inner circle and know more than the public does. Maybe you don’t. I can only tell you how I feel. I am shocked that Ed has gotten himself into this nightmare. It has taken me some time to get past the horror and shock of this and now I am mad.
    I am mad as a hornet that he has put his wife into this bizarre scenario. I am mad at how this will affect his son, and his son’s family. Friends get mad at friends, and are also allowed to have opinions!

  11. 1LT,
    I hope you didn’t expect your comment to be ignored.
    A) Ed Scott pleaded guilty because he wouldn’t receive a fair trial? I guess he shouldn’t have been at that hotel with the sole intent to follow through with his plan. He was also probably told that if there was a jury trial, society would have thrown the book at him. If this was simply a bad choice in judgment on his part, he wouldn’t have taken the deal, pleaded not guilty, and proved his case at trial.
    B) 3 boxes of condoms vs 3 condoms? It could have been a truck load, he still had condoms in his pocket and for one reason and one reason only.
    C) How many of the court hearings have you attended that the 12 yr old male & female were not mentioned? Both females or both males…they were still supposed 12 year olds. Children.
    D) Entrapment? Gee haven’t heard his defense attorney argue that one. I guess when he walked into the hotel there must have been a passenger in his car with a gun forcing him into the “entrapment” Nevertheless when he was communicating with the undercover cop online setting up the rendezvous.
    E) Ethical dilemma? This was not a thought “I have been drinking. Can I still drive?” (Mind you that is still very wrong) Ed planned, plotted, and tried to execute an unforgivable act. An act that “could” have involved real children. What if those children had been one of his grand children? Would you still stand by his side? What if, God forbid, it wasn’t a sting and he had gone through with his plan?
    Since you claim he made a “bad choice” and the punishment doesn’t fit the crime, why haven’t you bailed your friend out? Why hasn’t anyone?
    LT, I’m sure you mean well, but come on!

  12. To An old friend: He did not “discuss ANY sexual acts with children” as you claim. But since you are such an old friend maybe you already knew that and overlooked it in your anger. Besides, you do not know what went on in those emails, oh I forgot you are an old friend so you have all the details.

    You fail to mention the ‘mother’ in the sting or the entrapment that went on. You only see what is printed in the papers, which has been wrong on several fronts. You see things so black and white, but life never is so simple.

    Ed did have outstanding service, which is why he made it to the position he did. And SCPO RET is correct, it is up to the judge now. Turning my back on him would be wrong, especially when he needs friend more than ever.

    And we all have opinions, just some stink more than others!

    By the way, Ed did not have sex with a child, nor has he pleaded to it.

  13. I am disgusted by the fact that people out there are still trying to defend this guy.

    As an E9 in a leadership position, I am fairly certain he was witness to many a junior sailor being shown the door for breaking the rules and losing everything.

    Get him out of my Navy. He is an embarrassment to those of us who serve with honor and follow the rules.

  14. 1lt i can not agree more with an old friend. I have to chuckle when i read your comments ” he is not a villain he made a poor choice” , by your standards i suggest you might need to look in the mirror and re-calibrate yourself, i am just astounded that a few people that post here look at the crime as minor!! the only thing i can commend Scott on is that he was man enough to fess up to the crime, which i am sure his lawyer told him to do anyhow being he did not have a leg to stand on. So 1lt you stand by him if you please but after reading your remarks i wonder about your integrity. There comes a time where you must do the right thing no matter who your friends are especially when it comes protection of our children.

    navy retired2

  15. 1LT,
    I could not disagree with you more about your blanket statement in regards to the reason Scott made E-9. I have seen many an undeserving man get placed into positions that they should NEVER be put into. It would appear by the comments of many others in the original blog that this was the case with Ed Scott.

    I have met the guy on a couple of occasions and to tell you the truth, I did not like his cocky attitude. He truly thought he was untouchable.

    I agree with old friend. It’s sickening how people are still defending him based on the fact that it was a sting and not real children involved.

    This case has done more damage than you will ever imagine. A chief that I know who had NOTHING to do with Scott had his adoption halted because of Scott’s actions…I believe the reasons that were given were…because “of the press that chiefs are getting lately”.

    Bottom line 1LT is, his INTENT (which was criminal) was there…that’s all the proof that I need.

    Navy Retired2…Bravo! BraaaaaaaaVO!

  16. For anyone who is standing by Ed Scott, I would like you think about a few things.
    1. Hypothetically, what if he was discussing having sex with your child, brother, sister, or whoever under the legal age. How would you feel knowing that a 42 year old man was fantasizing about having sex, kissing, or whatever, with your family member? I bet you wouldn’t be real thrilled with the idea, and I also bet that you folks would not stand by him. So why are you standing by him now?
    2. Some of you are calling this entrapment. Where does that come from? If you didn’t know Scott, and it was some anonymous person, would you still be calling it entrapment? Probably not.
    3. Would you be willing to leave your 12 year old with him to “babysit” while you went out and ran errands? If you answer yes, then chances are you’re lying!
    1LT, you can stand by him and be his friend, but it will NEVER make what he did right. If you can remain friends with someone who is immoral, unethical, and untrustworthy, then perhaps we need to question your integrity.

  17. An Old Friend,
    Quite a few people, including myself, have asked the same questions – mostly directed to 1LT. As you can see s/he hasn’t replied to certain comments.
    Hopefully 21 May, justice will be served when Ed is sentenced.

  18. I love it when no one responds to my comments about the things that go on in other countries that allow child prostitution.
    Only confirms what I already know…and it sickens me.

  19. Booboo–I do not see where you made a comment in this section of the blog, so how can someone respond if there is nothing from you listed under this heading? Furthermore, to say it confirms what you already know is nebulous.

  20. What I meant to say was, “I love it when no one responds to THE comments about…” honest mistake considering I HAVE made the same comments in past blogs. My fault for not double checking my writing.

    The fact that someone else did mention it though, only confirms my suspicions even more. “Nebulous”? Misty…unclear? I have spoken with surface sailors and submarine sailors. They have told me the same thing. Some chiefs and some higher…and some jr. enlisted.(Male AND female) Are they ALL liars? I don’t think so.

    While I cannot “prove” it myself, why would they tell me this if it weren’t true?

    By the way, I have been associated with the Navy for over 20 years…so, with all due respect Michele, it’s your opinion that is “nebulous,” not mine.

  21. I am sorry, but I have to say it, but, I have to defend Booboo on this one…I have heard the same thing…only from my husband(who served for 20+ years) and many of his friends. It is a sad truth, but, there it is. Keep in mind though that it’s a societal problem…not just a Navy problem.

  22. Booboo, I was simply trying to understand what you were saying. Furthermore, you stated “Only confirms what I already know…and it sickens me.” and this is what I found nebulous. You did not state what you already know. So I find this imprecise and hazy.

    Before attacking me, perhaps being more clear in your thoughts would help. I am simply trying to understand what you are saying. More precisely, I have not stated an opinion, so how can my opinion be nebulous? I am simply trying to understand.

    However, that said I agree fully that what happens in other countries with children is horrific.

  23. Michele,
    I stand corrected. I will clarify…What I was referring to was the solicitation of child prostitutes in countries such as the Philippines and other Asian countries…I have been told that many of our sailors, jr. enlisted, chiefs and officers alike, solicit child prostitution when they are deployed. While it is legal in other countries, I do not believe it is legal as far as the code of military justice is concerned and if they were caught, they might possibly get “reprimanded” for it. but, from what I have been told, it’s pretty common practice. Let’s just say, they turn their heads on it.

  24. I have seen booboos postings in the past and i regard him or her a person that stereotypes people and tries to bash the navy, maybe he got kicked out? I challenge booboo to get the stats on child predators and you will find out that most are civilians in the states and over seas and that the military does not tolerate such behavior, so booboo go tell your tales to someone that might believe you and when you do speak get the stats and fill us in. I find you to be such a negative person.

    navyretired2

  25. Booboo,

    Thank you for clarifying your views. I have heard of this happening and find this appalling. I would speak more on this subject, but I don’t feel I have enough knowledge or facts to voice my opinion accurately.

  26. Booboo,

    I am not sure what you saw when you were there, but I will give you my view to see if it helps.

    A little background: I lived in the Philippines from 1986-1989 and served as a Military Policeman there. At that time based on historical ties, local customs and treaties, we had significant jurisdiction of U.S. military personnel and limited jurisdiction over U.S. civilians both on-base and off-base. That said, we pretty much saw it all from murder to petty theft and everything in between. We also had a very good relationship with local law enforcement, para-military and military officials.

    First of all, prostitution (both adult and child) is illegal in the Philippines as well as most other Asian countries. I do believe adult prostitution is legal in Singapore, but don’t take my word on that. In the Philippines, if a member was arrested by local police for solicitation, they would turn the member over to us and that person would be charged with the appropriate UCMJ article. However, without going into all the details, there was a method in which a service member and a local woman could go out together and do whatever consenting adults do. So I won’t try to fool you and say that sex between adults didn’t occur – it did. And it may or may not have included the exchange of money depending on the situation. As with all third world countries, socio-economic conditions will force people to do whatever it takes to survive.

    Now, for what I personally observed and this is in no way scientific data. Pedophilia was strictly forbidden, both by U.S. military and Philippines officials. Did we observe it – yes. I personally took custody of a military female who tried to solicit an undercover local policewoman posing as an underage girl. We took custody of two military males trying to rape a 13 year-old military dependent daughter, after being stopped by other sailors. There was an infamous case of a U.S. civilian that killed a little girl by raping her. He was tried by the local courts and sentenced to life in a Philippine prison – his life was terminated a few months into his sentence. Other cases that I was not personally involved but briefed on included several stings conducted by NIS (now known as NCIS) and local authorities. It was a crime that was taken very seriously.

    The case that I remember the best, involved a U.S. civilian, mother and father with no military connection (this means they were in the country on their own) who tried to sell their 10-year old daughter for sex to local men because they thought they would be interested in a blond haired, blue eyed girl. The local police wanted to turn the parents over to us because they did not want to deal with it. We had zero jurisdiction and told them we could not take custody and notified the U.S. Embassy. In the end, the local police transported the parents to the Embassy, but not before providing each with some local hands-on justice. Pictures were posted at local bars were civilian tourists tended to gather as a deterrent factor. If you ever saw these pictures you would almost feel bad for them…almost.

    Anyway, sorry to be so long, but most pedophilia was conducted by European men, who for some reason, tend to be into that sort of thing. Stings were common and hands-on justice by local police was just as common.

    I am not saying it didn’t happen, but it is definitely not legal and very bad for your health if you got caught. For U.S. personnel, if the host country declined legal rights, justice was usually swift (although not as painful and satisfying as local hands-on justice!) and resulted in BCD and some prison time. Hope this helps.

  27. Jim,
    Thank you for the info. I have been told that it is by military people and others. I have also been told that
    it is not uncommon for parents to send their kids out for prostitution. At any rate, legal or not, it is an atrocity and it happens.

    Thanks for the info..I am sure it will open many eyes.

  28. I completely agree that what this pervert was going to do is completely deplorable, disgraceful and just downright nasty. I do have a question – please pardon my ignorance – is there a way to give her his retirement and leave her on TRICARE until she can get on her feet? Is there a way to give him intensive, long-term mental help? Would that even work with someone like him?

  29. Catherine,
    She will lose the benefits the day he loses the benefits. As far as Scott is concerned, there is little they can do for Scott if he is truly a pedophile. Pedophiles generally cannot be rehabilitated. THAT is why they are put on sex offender lists. Right now, they are trying to decide what to do with Scott…like give him a shorter sentence with the condition that he get psychological counseling. Either way, he is still going to serve time…whether it is the mandatory minimum or the maximum. With his background, I would not be a bit surprised if the judge threw the book at him.

  30. Kris,
    You speak without facts, sex offenders re-offend at a much lower rate than many think, in fact, sex offenders reoffend at a rate that is around 15% without treatment and 7% with treatment. The rate for other criminals is 24%. This is from Washington State Corrections website.

    As for Scott, he can be rehabilitated, just like other sex offenders. In fact, there is a sex offender list, however, just because they are on the list does not mean they are a threat to society. Which is why there are different levels of sex offenders.

    It is true, the justice system is evaluating how to sentence Scott, and yes, he will serve time no matter what the outcome, either SOSSA or prison.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Before you post, please complete the prompt below.

(Not a trick question) What color is the pink house?