Wow. You learned how to do all that in boot camp? From everything I’ve heard (not a vet, but may be joining reserves as an officer soon), the boot camp sylabus concentrates on marching up and down the square, polishing boots, basic salute skills, the theory and practice of keeping your ass out of the brig and off the yardarm, and how to do anything the D.I. orders without asking questions.
I’m sure you realize that if you were ever going to be pulling any kind of direct contact combat or peacekeeping duties, the Navy would train you for those duties.
Back to the OP- since the armed forces of the US no longer have any interest in merely filling uniforms, I don’t see how this kind of thing would fly, even for the most petty of offenses. They are picky enough that they won’t take high school drop-outs with no criminal record (except for rare cases). Why would they bother with people proven to be troublemakers?
The military currently punishes its members for things, even petty offenses. I can’t see an organization, any organization filling its ranks with people it would punish otherwise.
Just about the only time I can see anything like this happening is if the US were being invaded (Soviets, aliens, Pat Sajak lookalikes, what have you…), and we needed every man, woman, and child to stand up and literally defend every inch of American soil.
I’m with those who think it’s a bad idea. Some petty criminals are of marginal intelligence and the way they survive is petty crime. They would be more trouble than they are worth to the military.
Others are pathological misbehavers. Again, nothing but a headache.
Most of them who are of normal intelligence have demonstrated a lack of both discipline and the ability to operate within a system and just wouldn’t be reliable for military purposes.
Are you talking about the military as an organization having weapons, Kalashnikov, or are you talking about individual military members having weapons?
If the former, then you are forgetting that the military is a branch of the federal government and is subject to the laws said branch is subject to.
If the latter, then it is incumbent on you to provide a cite where it shows that individual members of the military are not subject to gun laws wherever they reside. A good place to start for you to dissuade yourself of your idea is the local police station and ask what exemptions members of the military get for private ownership of weapons compared to the general public.
There’s a sign in the armory area where I’m at that says “Anyone convicted of misdemeanor spousal abuse or any felony is forbidden to sign out a weapon”.
I’m not sure if that is a law of the land, but it’s certainly a rule where I’m at.
Quite frankly, if the military ever accepted me, my first concern wouldn’t be a prisoner-turned-soldier (how in the world you’d defend your “pseudo-soldier” comment is beyond me, but fortunately I don’t have to worry about it:)) giving cover fire or whatever. Hey, you asked, I’m answering.
The military, I’m going to assume (and this is about as small a leap of faith as I’ve ever made), knows more about a given combat situation than I do. My Commanding Officer, in turn, probably knows a helluva lot more about the individual soldiers with whom I’m serving than I do. And thirdly, if I have some doubt as to the ability of my fellow soldier to serve, it’s partly my damn fault if I don’t bring it up and something bad happens. In short, I trust those doing the recruiting and accepting and such things to know who’s fit to serve and who isn’t.
Tripler, Airman, Monty and anyone else who’s served in the US armed forces: what, if any, value would a prisoner be to the military at all? Desk job? Anything like that? If this thought is doomed from the start, that’s okay … I just want to make sure all my base are belong to covered;)
iampunha: The bulk of my career in the military was in a desk job (right, desk? Hah! The desk was in the back of a APC when I was in the Army, and on a carrier when I was in the Navy). Everyone with whom I served was a volunteer and thus a professional. Some were less than thrilled with their circumstances; however, none was there to work off a criminal offense.
Yes, the idea posited in the OP was doomed at the start.
Here’s the final answer, and the only one necessary:
Any consideration given to an individual in lieu of serving their appointed and legally required sentance will permanently disqualify that person from military service. Why? To prevent the military from interfereing with the due process of law. The judge cannot allow you to get off lightly if you agree enlist. It’s been that way for about 30 years.
Now, once they’ve competed their sentance? It depends on their offence; how severe, how many offences, and so on. Some offences are waiverable, and some are not. I’ve enlisted drunk drivers, drug possesors, and once even a man who was arrested for suspicion of murder (real killer captured and convicted). The murder suspect required six pounds of supporting documentation. No shit. But he shipped out, and made a very passible sailor in the end.
What use is a prisoner? None whatsoever. What use is a former prisoner? Depends on his case…
As Airman Doors pointed out the Lautenburg amendment forbids anyone ever convicted of a misemeanor crime of domestic violence from posessiong a gun or ammunition, with no exemption for police or military. A fair number of police and military personnel in the US have been forced to change jobs because they have a domestic violence conviction. The law is arguably unconsitutional on ex post facto grounds for those that were convicted before it was law but it has yet to be overturned AFAIK.
As to the OP I take it as an insult to myself and any other past or present members of the armed services to suggest that we recruit convicted felons as cannon fodder. I realize it wasn’t meant as such so won’t take it too personally.
If I had a nickel for every schmoe who said a judge made him go in the military… A guy I met in boot camp tried to puff himself up by saying he was forced into the navy because he killed a man. Krusty on a fucking rubber crutch :rolleyes: I called his bluff an gave him an atomic death wedgie. He survived with only a pair of ruined skivvies. No charges were filed .
Actually, I’m not too familiar with the program, but anyone incarcerated locally in what’s called “Correctional Custody” is used on base in menial labor: sorting nuts and bolts in a machine shop, picking up trash around public roads, doing FOD walks, etc. I do have to emphasize though, that they’re always under surveillance and supervision. They are never left alone outside of a cell, and they are never allowed near weapons, ammunition, or anything else even remotely more dangerous than a flyswatter.
In an immediate use on the battlefield? I could see these guys helping to move litters of injured troops, loading or unloading cargo from transport aircraft, or even limited menial office work - all things that you always need an extra pair of hands for, but need more bodies on more meaningful tasks. You don’t want to waste manpower on supervision, so you might pick the “cream of the crop” of your prisoners for some of these details. Again, they’d have to be supervised, and it’d have to be something I needed to do but was short on manpower to complete.
Tripler: Those personnel in the military’s Correctional Custody Facilities are there because they’ve violated military law, not because they’ve been given the option of punishment or joinging the military. Their commanding officers have deemed that a period of CCF (during which they continue to draw their pay & allowances) will be a good wake-up call for them. Those for whom that option is not deemed beneficial will face more severe consequences (court-martial).
Monty, duly noted. He asked “prisoners” in general.
And you’re right, there is a difference between CCF (a temporary, local-commander imposed punishment) versus a say, state or federal prisoner (Ossinning, NY or Alcatraz). Because of jurisdiction, I don’t see federal or state prisoners serving under the DoD, but I’m sure they’d be pressed into service in a civilian capacity if they needed to (working in a factory making tank parts?). Jurisdiction would be the legally messy part. But, I’m sure if time travel were possible, the Soviets under Stalin would have a perfect answer. :rolleyes:
I’m sure ** iampunha ** is unfamiliar with military law and the process, and I’m sparing him certain details for the sake of simplicity.
Tripler
And to be honest, up until last week, I thought the USAF had phased out CCF.