NationStates Jolt Archive

In the Armed Forces, the idea is that people work hard, go through rigid training, learn discipline, and become a team. Maybe some rigid discipline would do convicts some good...what do you guys think?

THE UPSIDE TO THIS: For a number of convicts, the armed forces may serve as a better environment than jail. They are kept a lot busier, and rather than "preparing" to become a productive member of society, they are already becoming one. Also, rather than calling up reservists, the military would have more people in active duty.

THE DOWNSIDE TO THIS: Well, you might have to pay the convicts something, and of course, what if they cause trouble? Can the military handle troublemakers on this scale? Before you start saying, "Is the Pope Catholic?" to that previous question, you really have to wonder if a drill sergeant can handle hardened convicts...one or two could be manageable, but imagine a majority of convicts who decide to let the inmates run the asylum. I hope the court-martialing procedure can handle it.

THE QUESTIONS: What about "shore leave" or the equivalent? Do convicts get it, and if so, are there any special precautions taken? Are they just taken at first and then eased up on? Also, should convicts be put together or scattered throughout different groups? Should one year in jail be equivalent to one year in the Armed Forces? Should convicts even receive any money for themselve? And finally, what if they decide to stay in the Armed Forces after their mandated time is up? How should they be treated as far as career paths go?

I don't know of them being a jail alternative...I mean in the sense that if someone is convicted of, say, assault, they are offered either 4 years in jail or 4 years in the Armed Forces and given the choice. I haven't heard of any situation where that's been offered.

The whole principle our armed forces currently operate on is that of a volunteer force. The theory is that you'll get the BEST this way rather than through any sort of involuntary conscription. While I can see, perhaps, encouraging someone to join the armed forces, or MAYBE giving troubled youths this opportunity (before they have committed SERIOUS offenses such as assault), I'm concerned that forcing it would end up destroying the very thing that gives our military its strength: the fact that those who are there are there of their own volition.

So I say yes, some cases--but with severe reservations.

It is a privilege to serve in the armed forces - not a punishment. So my vote is no.

It is a privilege to serve in the armed forces - not a punishment. So my vote is no.

I'm going to agree with that. Serving one's country should never be used as a punishment. I would like to add, though, that if we sent criminals into the military, I don't think I'd feel safer knowing there are more highly trained, focused, and disciplined criminals out there.

well in the united states we get more than enough volunteers to fill our military requirements. we dont need a military full of criminals. we need motivated men and women with a reasonable level of education.

not that there arent quite a few former "bad boys" who end up going into the service and get their lives straightened out. they do a great job for us as well as improving themselves.

To a great extent it depends on the natures of the Armed Forces and the criminals. For a military like the smaller militias in Nigeria, convictions for rape and murder would be career enhancing, while the more elite 'professional" militaries which need to be above reproach, like the Canadian Armed Forces, should have reservations about accepting those who's morals are flexable enough to encompass even minor theft.

If the military accepts recruitment as an alternative to incarecertion I don't think it should be mandatory and aside from a short probationary period there should be no distinction between the members of the armed forces (too much likelyhood of a mutiny otherwise), and it should be considered rehabilitative and any conviction should be expunged from the record after service. I think any army with a prtense of proessionalism should limit this to minor offenses and the period of enlistment should be determined by the policy of standard enlistment in the service for non-criminals / again no distinction between those who opt for military service instead of incarceration.

well in the united states we get more than enough volunteers to fill our military requirements.
I´ve heard about some problems though. The advertisement needed to be increased and the military had to call in reservists. The tense international situation and the high number of foreign mission is causing this situation, which could deteriorate further if another big mission should begin. That actually explains this proposal in my view.
The other alternative may be the instituition of a draft.

La legion etrangere..

1) drill sergeants would pimp slap some convicts
2) duh you have to pay them, you do realise convicts in jail getp aid anyway, not much, but they do if they qualify for worker programs

As an official law, I don't think it was every on the books.

I think the option were "deals" made by judges.

It would depend on the crimes; I guess.....

I´ve heard about some problems though. The advertisement needed to be increased and the military had to call in reservists. The tense international situation and the high number of foreign mission is causing this situation, which could deteriorate further if another big mission should begin. That actually explains this proposal in my view.
The other alternative may be the instituition of a draft.The problems with the US military these days are not in having enough bodies, but in having enough with specific skills (which take a few years to learn). The greatest need currently is apparently Military Police, which I am pretty sure you wouldn't want your convicts doing, and they need them because there are problems when Combat Riflemen try doing police functions. Also engineers are somewhat in demand. The US military doesn't need either recruits, convicts or draftees - it needs career soldiers who are willing to sign on for extended tours to learn specialized skills.

The problems with the US military these days are not in having enough bodies, but in having enough with specific skills (which take a few years to learn). The greatest need currently is apparently Military Police, which I am pretty sure you wouldn't want your convicts doing, and they need them because there are problems when Combat Riflemen try doing police functions. Also engineers are somewhat in demand. The US military doesn't need either recruits, convicts or draftees - it needs career soldiers who are willing to sign on for extended tours to learn specialized skills.
Many countries who have a draft recruit their career soldiers out of those ranks. Many wouldn´t have come to the military without it. So those countries would argue that a draft is needed an helpfull to get enough people also for specialised functions. Furthernmore the military can of course give people aside a military trill a practical education - for those who sign up for twelve years for example or something.
I´m personally against a draft but I have to admitt that there arguments for it.

Many countries who have a draft recruit their career soldiers out of those ranks. Many wouldn´t have come to the military without it. So those countries would argue that a draft is needed an helpfull to get enough people also for specialised functions. Furthernmore the military can of course give people aside a military trill a practical education - for those who sign up for twelve years for example or something.
I´m personally against a draft but I have to admitt that there arguments for it.
Sure if the US had a draft it could pick its career soldiers from the ranks of the draftees, but the US military has no need for more warm bodies to pick its career soldiers from - it already turns down volunteers which they don't think are going career. While some professionals could be picked from the ranks of civilian occupations, can we really allow the US Army to start drafting cops off the street? As for practical education for longer enlistments, it already exists - usually four and six year enlistments (depending on the type of specialization and legnth of training / a US Navy nuclear trained enlisted signs on for six years and spends the first two years in school, longer for subs), perhaps this could be extended but that's outside the scope of the draft.