2006-10-18 00:51:18 · 17 answers · asked by fhi21 1 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
This has been done before. It was a program that was used heavily during the Vietnam war, when the military needed warm bodies to send to the meat grinder. It continued, I believe, thru the early 80's.
Many men convicted of minor crimes, such as small drug crimes, petty theft, etc., were allowed an option of military service instead of prison. The program was scrapped about the same time as barring high school drop-outs.
They stopped it with the idea that it was making the miltary a dumping ground for societie's refuse. However, in my opinion, and statistics bear out, this alternative afforded many people who were on a one way ticket to nowhere in life an opportunity to turn themselves around.
The personal discipline, the public service, and the pride of being part of something greater than yourself made life altering differences to many who would have otherwise ended up a statistic. I believe that for non-violent, non-predatory criminals, allowing the opportunity of service makes alot more sense than wasting money on sticking them in a system that has proven itself only ot make problems worse.
2006-10-18 01:39:29 · answer #1 · answered by lmn78744 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Well its not a terrible idea, provided you start from scratch. Building new facilities on foreign soil would provide these facilities at a cheaper prices and the labour supplied to man such would be cheaper, as would food & consumables. The nation providing the land would need assurances that the facility was highly secure; though they would no doubt welcome the inflow of capital and extra employment opportunities. However the problem would be maintaining legal standards. The personnel manning such places would likely be used to a far more lax but at the same time brutal prison regime; 1st world standards would have to be maintained for legal reasons, which may in itself negate a great deal of the potential savings. Such facilities could not be seen as a means to bypass the state's obligations to the accused!
2016-05-21 23:08:58 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This might work as an alternative for some criminals, but it would have to be very carefully controlled. The constitutionallity of such a program would probably be strongly criticized even if it was voluntary. It would probably cost a great deal to administer. Criminals would have to be screened to eliminated those who would cause more problems than good in a military situation. It is not a bad idea though for those who have only minor crimes. It would be far more rehabilitating than sitting in a cell.
2006-10-18 00:57:19 · answer #3 · answered by Answergirl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Depending on the crime. I would not send a child molester (although that may be the right thing to do) or a killer of a police officer, etc. I would not send a drug dealer either. I would consider manslaughter, assault, robbery, etc. If they pass a board making up of prison staff and military personnel, and they passed a mental and physical, yes I would consider it very carefully!
2006-10-18 01:07:05 · answer #4 · answered by Fitforlife 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
YES, especially the gang bangers and killers. Train and then put them on every front line firefight.
It would help save the life of another productive regular soldier citizen. Potentially get rid of the scum and better use of tax money.
I believe it was done during WWI and /or WWII
2006-10-18 01:38:31 · answer #5 · answered by GERALD S. MCSEE 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
A better alternative would be to train and send all those flag waving " Americans " They are talk, as long that somebody else does the fighting and die for them. Almost 2800 and counting. For nothing.
2006-10-18 01:07:02 · answer #6 · answered by elgil 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
DEPENDS ON THE INFRACTION.
If they are in for a non violent crime, such as theft, or drag racing, then I would say let them work for the county they committed the crime in, like garbage, or road clean up, etc..
Murder? Death penalty.
Beating up their wife, or robbing a store at gun point, or other violent action in which no death occurred, then yes, put them in uniform, after a solitary confinement period of 6 months and psychological exam, and place them on the front lines.
2006-10-18 00:58:19 · answer #7 · answered by someones_gottadoit 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No... Supposedly we are there to help protect the Iraqi people... How would you like to be a civilian in let's say New Orleans after Katrina and the government sent in prisoners to help keep you safe????
2006-10-18 01:03:35 · answer #8 · answered by Andy FF1,2,CrTr,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't believe this would work because they may use the guns against other Americans and would not follow orders as soldiers do. I believe it would be too risky to do.
2006-10-18 00:53:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Their in prison for a crime and I don't want to give them a gun and tell them it's okay to kill people now.
2006-10-18 00:53:57 · answer #10 · answered by John S 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋