Are you a convicted felon? No Worries

[blzrul]

Burglary, assault, terroristic threats on your conviction record? No worries, you can still serve your country.

 

Shades of Vietnam.

 

Now - I am the first to admit that once a convict has served his or her time, he or she should be allowed to be a productive contributor to society. And it's possibly the best opportunity many of them will have.

 

However, I am not sure I would feel comfortable serving next to a convicted felon. And for those who have been convicted of more violent crimes, should they really be in a position where they are encouraged to kill? Doesn't seem smart to me.

 

Well, it could be worse. They could be GAY convicted felons. You'd hear an uproar then.

[SD Jarhead]

I'm not wild about this either, though I think we're a long way from drafting "MacNamera's 100k" all over again. That was MacNamaera's decision to draft "Cat 4's" (borderline retards and people like Molten Idiot) into the service during the late stages of Vietnam.

 

To put it in perspective though, the world we live in today has a much faster trigger in the legal world than the 'good old days'. What I mean is that kids are much more likely to be arrested for things today that would've resulted in either a slap on the wrist or a ride home back then. The military does vet these kind of offenses pretty good or at least they used to when I was in.

 

But if the economy keeps going the way it is, recruiting shouldn't be as tough.

[molson_golden2002]

The military is pretty rotten at the top, why shouldn't it be at the bottom as well?

[molson_golden2002]

I'm not wild about this either, though I think we're a long way from drafting "MacNamera's 100k" all over again. That was MacNamaera's decision to draft "Cat 4's" (borderline retards and people like Molten Idiot) into the service during the late stages of Vietnam.

 

To put it in perspective though, the world we live in today has a much faster trigger in the legal world than the 'good old days'. What I mean is that kids are much more likely to be arrested for things today that would've resulted in either a slap on the wrist or a ride home back then. The military does vet these kind of offenses pretty good or at least they used to when I was in.

 

But if the economy keeps going the way it is, recruiting shouldn't be as tough.

 

Ya, back in the good old days these things would warrent a slap on the wrist!

Recruits were allowed to enlist after having been convicted of crimes including assault, burglary, drug possession and making terrorist threats.

 

 

 

God you are a stupid foking idiot! Sh-- for brains!

[VABills]

Yo dickhead mol. Did you even do research. The folks getting these exemptions are folks that have felony juvenile records. This crap should have never have been made public, since juvi records are supposed to be sealed. The fact that your lib scumbag congress criters feel it's needed to bring it into the limelight is immorral and possibly illegal.

 

So what a kid does when they are 15 should count against them for the remainder of their life?

[Alaska Darin]

The military has LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG been a tool the courts use to turn around wayward youth. The Army and Marines are at the top of the list of places where judges give the option to kids who've "gone wrong". As in "you're either going to jail or enlisting, take your pick". The Air Force generally doesn't play along with this kind of stuff, for whatever reason.

 

This ain't news to anyone with half a clue. When recruiting is down, the services adapt their entry qualifications. Been that way forever.

[GG]

Does this mean that the bleeding hearts will argue for more death penalties & much stronger prison sentences for all convicted felons, since obviously they can't be rehabilitated?

 

Instead of regurgitating a random statistic, it would be helpful to see what percentage of convicted felons get in the military vs the regular work force. Another valid question is posed by AD, if you truly believe in a rehabilitation program for former criminals, wouldn't the military be a better place for them, then let's say, teaching kindergarten?

 

Keep up the daily affirmations. It's a good way to start a day.

[Live&DieBillsFootball]

I would go further and enlist prison inmates into the army. You could start with the drug offenders and move on to other low-level inmates. Give them the option of serving their sentence in the army as opposed to prison. We save the $40,000 plus per year to house their asses and make them productive. If they screw up, they go back to jail for the rest of their sentence.

[blzrul]

Yo dickhead mol. Did you even do research. The folks getting these exemptions are folks that have felony juvenile records. This crap should have never have been made public, since juvi records are supposed to be sealed. The fact that your lib scumbag congress criters feel it's needed to bring it into the limelight is immorral and possibly illegal.

 

So what a kid does when they are 15 should count against them for the remainder of their life?

Nice way to contradict yourself. You're actually right, juvenile records are ARE sealed...unless the juvenile was tried and convicted as an adult. Hence, they're NOT juvenile. You'd have to agree for the crime to be bad enough to try a child as an adult, it's a bad crime eh?

 

In any event I would love to see your source that these are "juvi" convictions as opposed to adults.

 

These are not kids, these are men who have in some cases committed aggravated assault, burglary, sexual assault and other crimes.

 

Again, maybe the second chance is good for them. But if I were serving in Iraq I might be a little wary. And if I worked myself to the death to be one of the few, the proud - I'd be a little pissed that apparently the standards I was held to have been lowered.

[VABills]

Nice way to contradict yourself. You're actually right, juvenile records are ARE sealed...unless the juvenile was tried and convicted as an adult. Hence, they're NOT juvenile. You'd have to agree for the crime to be bad enough to try a child as an adult, it's a bad crime eh?

 

In any event I would love to see your source that these are "juvi" convictions as opposed to adults.

 

These are not kids, these are men who have in some cases committed aggravated assault, burglary, sexual assault and other crimes.

 

Again, maybe the second chance is good for them. But if I were serving in Iraq I might be a little wary. And if I worked myself to the death to be one of the few, the proud - I'd be a little pissed that apparently the standards I was held to have been lowered.

On your first point doesn't matter if charged as an adult or not, if under 18 it's not supposed to be released.

 

Secondly, I am sure all the exempted Marines were all charged with assulting liberals. So they're okay in my book.

[SD Jarhead]

Ya, back in the good old days these things would warrent a slap on the wrist!

Recruits were allowed to enlist after having been convicted of crimes including assault, burglary, drug possession and making terrorist threats.

 

 

 

God you are a stupid foking idiot! Sh-- for brains!

 

I don't have time to respond to you right now, so I'm going to write a novel.

 

Hey Ricky Retardo, how old are you? I'm talking about your chronological age, simpleton, because we all know your mental age.

 

Back in the day, when I was in High School, no one was ever charged with felony assault for fighting after school. You also could 'borrow' some of Dad's reload gunpowder and make pipe bombs to blow the woods up without being charged with a terrorist act. I also remember some kids (delinquents) flushing M-80's down the toilet at school occasionally.

 

Those offenses and others like them are examples of things would most likely give a teen a felony on their record today that most likely wouldn't have 20-25 years ago. Our drug laws have become much more rigid then they used to be also.

 

The days of the Cops giving a drunk a ride home are also long gone because of the fear of a lawsuit. These are examples of what I meant when I posted above.

 

The point is, kids make mistakes. Let the services figure out if they want to take a chance and give someone a second chance. It straightened out many delinquents in the past (myself included), why can't it work in the present?

 

That stated, there are limits to who they should let in. But that is why all of those type of offenses require a waiver, granted at the Commanding General level. Not everyone with a felony record will get in; in fact very few will.

 

But I'm sure you will not be able to comprehend this given your vast understanding of...well, nothing.

[GG]

These are not kids, these are men who have in some cases committed aggravated assault, burglary, sexual assault and other crimes.

 

Again, maybe the second chance is good for them. But if I were serving in Iraq I might be a little wary. And if I worked myself to the death to be one of the few, the proud - I'd be a little pissed that apparently the standards I was held to have been lowered.

 

So you do agree that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to go free, or if they do, shouldn't be allowed to rejoin society?

[blzrul]

On your first point doesn't matter if charged as an adult or not, if under 18 it's not supposed to be released.

 

Secondly, I am sure all the exempted Marines were all charged with assulting liberals. So they're okay in my book.

Check again. There are a 12-13 year olds who were tried as adults complete with cameras in the courtroom, their names and photos in the paper, etc. Perhaps it varies from state to state.

[blzrul]

So you do agree that convicted felons shouldn't be allowed to go free, or if they do, shouldn't be allowed to rejoin society?

I think it depends on the crime. There are quite a few felonies for which I think people should be eternally locked up. Crimes involving weapons. Child molestation. Rape. Murder. Etc. I think the three-strike laws are appropriate (although I think if a third strike is stealing a Snickers bar, that's a little extreme).

 

But I would not go so far as to say EVERY felon should be locked up forever because some people do turn their lives around...and some people are wrongly convicted (probably more than we know).

 

We have an awful lot of people in jail here in America, as a proportion of our population I think it's the highest in the world. So either we are a nation of criminals*, or maybe some of our laws need to be revisited.

 

My beef with the military waivers is that we hold our military to a high standard, and they have a right to be proud of earning that right to wear the uniform. I take it as somewhat of a slap in their face that they're now having to serve with people who are convicted of crimes like manslaughter, etc.

 

Right now the number of waivers is small, and I would love to believe that they were evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis to assure these people are not a threat to their comrades. But I am not that naive.

 

*If we ARE a nation of criminals then I guess it's only right that they serve.

[VABills]

Check again. There are a 12-13 year olds who were tried as adults complete with cameras in the courtroom, their names and photos in the paper, etc. Perhaps it varies from state to state.

Well maybe it is case by case. But I know a couple years back a newspaper ran a 17 year olds name who was convicted of murder and it was not well received here. Not sure what the penalties are, but they had to print apologizes and retractions.

[GG]

Right now the number of waivers is small, and I would love to believe that they were evaluated carefully on a case-by-case basis to assure these people are not a threat to their comrades. But I am not that naive.

 

Yeah, ok. It's a rubber stamp approval to grant that waiver.

 

If you had bothered to look up the data, you would see 850 waivers were granted in 2007, out of total recruiting classes of 115K. How does that compare with rest of the working population?

 

Which still doesn't answer the question of what you want done with the felons after their prison sentences run out. Mighty liberal of you.

[blzrul]

Yeah, ok. It's a rubber stamp approval to grant that waiver.

 

If you had bothered to look up the data, you would see 850 waivers were granted in 2007, out of total recruiting classes of 115K. How does that compare with rest of the working population?

 

Which still doesn't answer the question of what you want done with the felons after their prison sentences run out. Mighty liberal of you.

Actually I was well aware of that number. That's why I could even mention that there would be a possibility of the cases being reviewed.

 

Even as horse's ass like you ought to recognize that "I don't know" is an answer. Because I don't. There is no one answer to the problem of what to do with them. I don't have a solution, but it doesn't mean I have to like what's happening.

 

But again I forget I am dealing with a beady little wingnut mind that sees and thinks (if it DOES think) in black and white only, and very narrowly at that.

[molson_golden2002]

I don't have time to respond to you right now, so I'm going to write a novel.

 

Good one

[VABills]

Actually I was well aware of that number. That's why I could even mention that there would be a possibility of the cases being reviewed.

 

Even as horse's ass like you ought to recognize that "I don't know" is an answer. Because I don't. There is no one answer to the problem of what to do with them. I don't have a solution, but it doesn't mean I have to like what's happening.

 

But again I forget I am dealing with a beady little wingnut mind that sees and thinks (if it DOES think) in black and white only, and very narrowly at that.

Then why bring it up. I used to have a boss that would let anyone complain about anything, but they had to offer at least 2 seperate and viable solutions to problem, or they had to STFU.

[GG]

Actually I was well aware of that number. That's why I could even mention that there would be a possibility of the cases being reviewed.

 

Even as horse's ass like you ought to recognize that "I don't know" is an answer. Because I don't. There is no one answer to the problem of what to do with them. I don't have a solution, but it doesn't mean I have to like what's happening.

 

But again I forget I am dealing with a beady little wingnut mind that sees and thinks (if it DOES think) in black and white only, and very narrowly at that.

 

Yet, it didn't prevent your squirrel sized brain from stopping the itchy finger on the "New Topic" button. Mind you didn't just reply in this thread, but felt compelled to initiate a discussion on a topic to which you admit having an opposing view when it comes to providing a real solution.

 

And the topping beauty (and I hate to use that term in any thread involving you) is that you accuse me of seeing black & white, when I argue a gray area. Is there any hypocrisy left over for anyone else after you corner the market?