If young offenders had a judge ruling of joining the military instead of going to prision, for certain crimes (involving non-violent / fire arms cases ) Please state your vote, would be in favor, or not in favor and please give your reasons. thanx..
2006-11-27 13:08:23 · 22 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Military
Thank you all for your responses, very insightful comments so far.
If young offenders were "eligible"under a judge's ruling to join the military as an alternative to going to prison ??
2006-11-27 13:49:41 · update #1
When you get down to it, the goal of war is to kill the other guy before he kills you right?
So the only issue is not one of whether or not they are violent. You WANT violent people in the military. It gives them a constructive outlet for those tendancies. It's a matter of whether or not they are capable of serving. Using criminal offenses or at risk youths as our front line soldiers would have another significant advantage. The PTS disorder would become rather rare. These are kids that have been shot at since a young age. So nothing new there. In war they get to shoot back and not worry about being arrested.
Most importantly, most crime is a convegence of many factors. Giving people a chance for something other than life in and out of prison then right back to the crime filled neighborhood they came out of is one way to break the cycle for many of these people. Being a soldier is an honorable proffesion. If these kids off the street who are willing were to obtain training and education from the Military in return for risking their lives to protect the country. Then many would avoid lives as career criminals. Many crimes would be prevented. Crime ridden neighborhoods would decline. The cycle broken and a certain number returning to inspire the new generation to get out into the world and see beyond the graffit encrusted walls to the opportunites that await even the poorest American. Hard to see that when every day the cops treat you like a criminal no matter if you are doing anything wrong. When life is a struggle, higher education a pipe dream and opportunity means working a dead end job for low wages until you die or hurt yourself bad enough to earn disability.
So unless it's a sexual crime or cold blooded murder I'd move all that chose to do so to a sentence in the military.
Detractors like to pretend the military is too complex for "criminals" to understand. Sorry but if farm kids and inner city youths are already doing it then why not more farm kids and inner cities youths which are the bulk of those in prison today not be able to do the same? It's not intelligence, it's a lack of opportunity that creates crime.
The second issue is one of keeping corruption down in the military. This is a more difficult task. Again it relies on volenteers and the fact that if one of those given alternate sentencing screws up they get a max sentence. Once in for a time, promotions, the potential for retirement, built in discipline and friendships will make them no more likely to commit a crime as a soldier than any other soldier.
2006-11-27 14:14:22 · answer #1 · answered by draciron 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The problem with sentencing them to military training is that even if they committed a non-violent crime such as brandishing a firearm in a public place it means they might be a little lacking in situational intelligence. It also means they would be more likely to be involved in killing innocent civilians, prisoner abuse etc because having a weapon and using it gives them a power trip.
I think in order for the military to rehabilitate them they should be put in either the Marines or the Army infantry because they would be well disciplined in either place. They should also have to go to special aggression management classes though. I do believe their aggression can be redirected, but it is difficult. In my time in the military I have seen soldiers commit crimes against unarmed civilians, then found out later that those same soldiers had a history of crime. Those have been the minority though; the majority of former offenders have been very successful, but I think that is because they were well disciplined by their commanders early on in their military career.
2006-11-27 22:16:32 · answer #2 · answered by simplyapoet 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No. Although it's been used in the past for relatively minor offenses(although not since Vietnam), it's an idea that can't work well. For all that some of the responders have spoken about guiding these offenders' aggressive tendencies, or about it not being too complicated, or a variety of other things, the unmentioned issues are discipline and conformity. The people we entrust to serve in the armed forces-- to whom we not just hand automatic weapons, but also the triggers to weapons of mass destruction-- have to be willing to conform to the rules of the society around them (the military). The "young offenders of firearms" you ask about have demonstrated that they are unwilling or unable to conform to society's rules, and have already committed at least one act of significant law-breaking (if they got caught the only time they ever used a weapon, they're incompetent; if it's merely the first time they got caught, they're thugs).
Either way, these aren't the men or women to whom I would want to entrust myself if I were still on active duty, or to whom I want to entrust my nation now that I'm retired.
In any case, what is a "non-violent" firearms case that would send someone to prison? If you point a gun at someone and threaten to shoot him or her, that is, by both the law and by its very nature, an act of violence. The only non-violent firearms cases are thos involving things like licensure laws, and you don't get prison time for such things. Any firearms crime so major that it would result in, not just time in jail, but an actual prison conviction... that person should not be serving in our nation's military.
[For those who don't know the difference: relatively minor offenses can get you time in jail-- that's at the local or county level. Only more severe offenses can get you prison time-- prisons are state or federal. Or: You steal a gun, you go to jail. You rob somebody with one, you go to prison.]
2006-11-27 22:57:42 · answer #3 · answered by The Padre 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
When I was in the Marine Corp some of the recruits in my platoon (this was during Vietnam) had a choice of going to jail or joining the military.
Not everyone got that opportunity and the ones that took it, at least in my experience with them did pretty well.
If there is a proper screening process, meaning the odds are that the offender will benefit and prosper in the military, and the military agrees to take a chance with the individual offender then I say go for it.
If anyone is going to truly learn to respect a weapon, and use it properly, it's going to be in the military, especially the Marine Corp.
2006-11-27 21:24:46 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
As a member of a volunteer Organization: The Civil Air Patrol The Air Force Auxiliary (www.cap.gov), I would HAVE TO SAY NO. Yes they may not of been charged this time with a violent offense, but that doesn't mean that they haven't or won't be. Having them sentenced to the Military, give them every right in the world to own a gun. They could end up shooting someone in the military. It is an honor, and a priviledge, not a Penalty Charge for a bad action. So my answer is NO.
2006-11-27 21:11:40 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 1⤋
No. The military is an honorable profession just like a doctor or engineer, or plumber, or housewife is an honorable profession. Yes the military requires a great deal of discipline and criminals need discipline. Yes people in the military kill people and so do criminals. However, beyond surface level, criminals and the military are not compatible. Criminals kill for whatever selfish, crazy reason pops into their minds. Soldiers kill to defend the honor of their country. The military requires people who already have a base of values and discipline, and gives them more values and discipline. Criminals should be punished, not rewarded by giving them an important job.
2006-11-28 04:01:26 · answer #6 · answered by JSB 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No way, it's an HONOR to serve in the United States Military and committing a crime has no honor.
What should be done is that they get charged with a fine or be sentenced to prison. Until they can shape up I will not approve of them wearing the Eagle/Globe/Anchor etc.
However maybe they should be sentenced to boot camp and if they behave well and show honor and change they could be sent to the military for further examination.
But overall, no, a special back round check would be needed and such idea stated up there for it to have my approval, but I don't want to work with criminals when I grow up.. Or even have them defending one of my most valued possessions. (My freedom)
2006-11-27 22:10:48 · answer #7 · answered by Shadowfox 4 · 2⤊ 1⤋
NO! Young offenders don't have what it takes to defend our country. It would be one of the worst things that could be done to our military. I also think the law would have to be changed at the Federal level for a judge to be able to do this. Sorry, I mean no offense but I think it's a terrible idea to turn the military into jail and try to force offenders to serve.
2006-11-27 21:23:42 · answer #8 · answered by JudiBug 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I honestly and personally think it would be a BETTER oppurtunity rather than going to prison. There are some recruits in bootcamp who are there because they have to. And many make it. Because its the military or jail. However, you can't have a 15 year old go into the military. because its usually around the ages of 15 - 17 year old ish. So what happens most of the time is they get community service * if its their first offense * after that, they are sent to state programs....But i mean if they are 18 - 23 years old yeah...I think the military could really help them.
2006-11-27 21:16:27 · answer #9 · answered by Jason M 3 · 2⤊ 3⤋
No way. Why on Earth would we want to take people who have already been convicted of an offense involving firearms and put them in a situation where they will have access to firearms, and training on how to use them more efficiantly? It's like asking for more crimes to be committed.
2006-11-27 21:50:22 · answer #10 · answered by DiAnne 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋