More Convicted Felons Allowed to Enlist

[phrogpilot73]

Guess what, I still don't want them wearing a uniform.

You're not an Admiral or a General that is eligible to approve these waivers, so it seems like your opinion pretty much doesn't matter.

Like I said, you may never know who you're serving with that has a felony conviction. I never knew - and it turns out he was one of the few guys that I would trust with my life.

It's a pity that you're so narrow minded to realize that people are indeed capable of learning from their mistakes.

 

[brownshoe]

And back then once IN the squadron .... there was ALWAYS the option of "Chiefs' EMT" out behind the Ordnance Shack at the end of the day ....

Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. I have never known that particular "technique" to fail w/ young, confused, troubled airmen ...

Never saw this happen. However, if you were a “dick” you went mess cooking or coup cleaning rather quickly. If you were a “dick” we’d never let you near an airplane. We had a few guys in our squadron who swabbed decks, slopped chow, or made racks the whole time they were in the service.

Those of us that went the distance in my squadron … well we did all of the neat shit! Cold flight decks and hot Yuma dets. (Fun stuff though, wouldn’t trade it for anything.) Ah what I wouldn’t have given for a WESTPAC or a MED cruise. Put in two chits for a transfer to any sea going squadron. They wouldn’t let me leave 44.

Steve

 

[usmarinemike]

How about making the argument that puts your life in the hands of a convicted felon - not ours.

Have fun with that.

"...the red areas are contaminated with chemical agents, you have these two barrels and a coffee cup to complete the mission. Time is of the essence, and your rifleman has been convicted of a felony."

If you don't get the joke, sorry, it's a Marine thing.

Just sounds like a leadership challenge to me. You'll know way before you have to trust your life with them whether that's an issue or not. Now having to deal with them in garrison, that's where they'll be a real thorn in your side if they're going to be.

...I'll take a guy who was convicted of possessing a pound of weed or getting a hummer from his 17 year old girl friend over a run of the mill draftee any fucking day of the week.

 

[BACONATOR]

"...the red areas are contaminated with chemical agents, you have these two barrels and a coffee cup to complete the mission. Time is of the essence, and your rifleman has been convicted of a felony."

If you don't get the joke, sorry, it's a Marine thing.

Just sounds like a leadership challenge to me. You'll know way before you have to trust your life with them whether that's an issue or not. Now having to deal with them in garrison, that's where they'll be a real thorn in your side if they're going to be.

...I'll take a guy who was convicted of possessing a pound of weed or getting a hummer from his 17 year old girl friend over a run of the mill draftee any fucking day of the week.

I'm not a Marine and I get it....:sleep_125

I agree with the point you made, BTW... who cares. There are plenty of non-felon shitbags in the military. Those with bad histories who hide it well.... most probably wouldn't even know. Those were AND are shitbags...they won't be around too long...or at least shouldn't be.

 

[Flash]

You're not an Admiral or a General that is eligible to approve these waivers, so it seems like your opinion pretty much doesn't matter.

Like I said, you may never know who you're serving with that has a felony conviction. I never knew - and it turns out he was one of the few guys that I would trust with my life.

It's a pity that you're so narrow minded to realize that people are indeed capable of learning from their mistakes.

So why do we even come on AW in the first place? I guess we should all go skipping off into the sunset now.......:icon_roll

Well, I am happy that you had a good experience with someone who was a convicted felon. I haven't though, though I can honestly say that I only know the felons I know of were convicted while in the military, and I would not want to serve with any of them.

Why is it such a pity I am so close-minded on this issue? I believe in redemption and second chances, but why does it have to be the military that offers them? Life ain't fair, and it sucks a heck of a lot worse when you are convicted of a felony. Even fast food joints don't like hiring convicts, why should the military? So, you had a good experience with a felon, a single experience does not change the fact that we are letting in people that could pose a danger to others.

And who says that the Generals and Admirals giving the waivers are not making mistakes? They are as fallible as the rest of us.

 

[villanelle]

I find it interesting that so many people on this site were against gays (serving openly) in the military because the military isn't a place for social experimentation and advancing social policy, and yet so many of you think it's a good place for taking chances on (hopefully) reformed felons.

I know the issues aren't directly tied, but I think their is a common thread that underlies them--that the military isn't the place for taking chances just so everyone can get warm fuzzies. I believe that felons are potentially capable of reforming themselves, but I also believe that once you've proven yourselves capable of serious crime, there are certain forums that I don't think are appropriate for testing whether or not they are reformed. I am sure there are some child molesters that change their evil ways, but I'm still not going to hire one to babysit my kids just because I think everyone deserves a second chance.

Military service is too important to risk putting it in the hands of someone who swears--and we hope truthfully so--that he's changed.

That being said, perhaps lesser felonies, as considered on a case by case basis, might be worth overlooking. The chance you take on someone who stole a car when he was 17 is a lot smaller than taking a chance on someone who forcibely raped someone.

 

[QuagmireMcGuire]

How about making the argument that puts your life in the hands of a convicted felon - not ours.

Have fun with that.

Ya see, I never argued that any one of you should be happy about accepting convicted Felons. Never wrote that nor do I feel that way. So, I truly don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

Instead, I argued with FLASH over his perception that people with sex crimes and manslaughter convictions were a greater harm to him and his family than any other convicted felon that enlisted. **Edited** I read an article addressing that murder was an allowable offense in the Army** yet we can believe that felony sex crimes and manslaughter convictions are the ones posing the greater threats?

As previously stated, I support not enlisting all individuals with Felony convictions; but, it is senseless to pick which felons are less of a danger to yourself and your family based upon generic terms as sex crimes and manslaughter.

http://www.palmcenter.org/press/dadt/releases/military_enlistment_of_felons_has_doubled

 

[phrogpilot73]

So why do we even come on AW in the first place? I guess we should all go skipping off into the sunset now.......:icon_roll

That was in reference to "I don't want them in uniform." It doesn't matter if you want them or not. They are already here.

Well, I am happy that you had a good experience with someone who was a convicted felon. I haven't though, though I can honestly say that I only know the felons I know of were convicted while in the military, and I would not want to serve with any of them.

Sure about that? You've done an in-depth background check of everyone who you've served with?

Why is it such a pity I am so close-minded on this issue? I believe in redemption and second chances, but why does it have to be the military that offers them? Life ain't fair, and it sucks a heck of a lot worse when you are convicted of a felony. Even fast food joints don't like hiring convicts, why should the military? So, you had a good experience with a felon, a single experience does not change the fact that we are letting in people that could pose a danger to others.

And who says that the Generals and Admirals giving the waivers are not making mistakes? They are as fallible as the rest of us.

I agree they are fallible, however - there's a reason they're the ones that are required to give the waiver. Based on experience, weighing the needs of the service, etc... I highly doubt they're signing off waivers if they think that there's even an outside chance they could pose a danger to others.

Second, and this is one thing that you're failing to realize (and I'm sure that has already been taken into account during the waiver process), is that the rehabilitation has already occurred. Most of these waivers are things that probably happened when they made poor decisions when they were teens. They have since paid the price, learned their lesson, and moved on. Why can't you?

Finally, a convicted murderer probably isn't going to refuse the order to engage an enemy target.

 

[Flash]

That was in reference to "I don't want them in uniform." It doesn't matter if you want them or not. They are already here.

Still doesn't mean I like it, and that is my opinion.

Sure about that? You've done an in-depth background check of everyone who you've served with?

Poor sentence composition on my part, but I already tried to say that.

I haven't though, though I can honestly say that I only know the felons I know of [who] were convicted while in the military, and I would not want to serve with any of them.

The ones I did know of, I still would not want to serve with any of them.

I agree they are fallible, however - there's a reason they're the ones that are required to give the waiver. Based on experience, weighing the needs of the service, etc... I highly doubt they're signing off waivers if they think that there's even an outside chance they could pose a danger to others.

That is part of the problem, we don't know. Why not make all of the relevant info public?

Second, and this is one thing that you're failing to realize (and I'm sure that has already been taken into account during the waiver process), is that the rehabilitation has already occurred. Most of these waivers are things that probably happened when they made poor decisions when they were teens. They have since paid the price, learned their lesson, and moved on.

How can we be so sure? The recidivism rate in the US is pretty high.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/rpr94.htm

Why can't you?

Because I am obstinate and believe I am right.

Finally, a convicted murderer probably isn't going to refuse the order to engage an enemy target.

But do you want him hanging out in the barracks after the fight? Or on base with all of the dependents? Not me.

 

[SkywardET]

The article said that waivers were only granted after a thorough review. This is plausible to me, as I consider the numerous disqualifying factors to military service that are realtively heavily screened for such a large inprocessing at MEPS. I believe that the most dangerous (to the Navy) part of recruiting is the recruiter himself/herself. From the "your name is No" attitude that stems from the pressure to keep up numbers to the actual implication of the quotas themselves, it is quite a spectacular way of playing statistical games with peoples' lives.

The blanket term "felon" is obviously ineffectual if you can accept certain felons over others based on the type of felony. This is especially true if you consider the felony convictions of those whose acts you wouldn't describe as felonies, such as minor-on-minor sex and so forth. It's a case where a law ought not be a law in the first place, or at least not ought to be written like it is.

 

[plc67]

Well, I for one would never let a known bicycle thief enlist,or re-enlist. There's no telling what psychological damage he could inflict.

 

[A4sForever]

Personally, I'd serve (and have w/ a lot of real basket cases and miscreants) w/ any guy --- as long as they do their job, don't cause ANY trouble for the unit (other than the miscellaneous liberty associated drunk-fest-excess wherein no one really gets hurt), and stand up for you when you need 'em.

I'd say let them serve. It just may be the best "rehab" available ...

In many cases ... there but for the grace of God go I ...

 

[brownshoe]

Personally, I'd serve (and have w/ a lot of real basket cases and miscreants) w/ any guy --- as long as they do their job, don't cause ANY trouble for the unit (other than the miscellaneous liberty associated drunk-fest-excess wherein no one really gets hurt), and stand up for you when you need 'em.

I'd say let them serve. It just may be the best "rehab" available ...

In many cases ... there but for the grace of God go I ...

Me too! I did also, and would do it again. This thread has gotten way out in left field. I'm off for a beer and a movie. Didn't like to "brig chase" though A4's. No fun lockin' up someone who just saved your bacon on the flight deck a few days ago.

Steve

 

[A4sForever]

Me too! .... No fun lockin' up someone who just saved your bacon on the flight deck a few days ago.

Steve

You bet, Steve-o ...

One of our BEST flight deck final checkers was an 18-year 2nd class PO ... does anyone wonder why ... ???

 

[brownshoe]

You bet, Steve-o ...

One of our BEST flight deck final checkers was an 18-year 2nd class PO ... does anyone wonder why ... ???

Yep been there and saw it! Do they still have this stuff today?

I only “brig chased once” it was traumatic for me. I even mentioned it in a thread a while ago. I did take a friend to the brig at NAS JAX. It was a sad day for me… He was a guy I’d served with for years, and he had pulled me out of jet blast a few days before while working the LEX flight deck. I knew he had been in trouble; he drank a bit, and had been to Captain’s Mast a few times. I just didn’t know I’d be the guy taking him to the brig. (Had the duty.)

After that trip I begged to never get that duty again. Even if I did have the duty, they’d find someone else to deliver a guy to JAX from our squadron, if the problem came up. They wouldn’t let me leave 44, but they cut me slack for this duty.

Steve