ACK!

More convicted felons allowed to enlist in Army, Marines


Army, Marines see sharp jump in number of felons allowed to enlist


By LOLITA C. BALDOR Associated Press Writer


WASHINGTON

Under pressure to meet combat needs, the Army and Marine Corps brought in significantly more recruits with felony convictions last year than in 2006, including some with manslaughter and sex crime convictions.

Data released by a congressional committee shows the number of soldiers admitted to the Army with felony records jumped from 249 in 2006 to 511 in 2007. And the number of Marines with felonies rose from 208 to 350.

Those numbers represent a fraction of the more than 180,000 recruits brought in by the active duty Army, Navy, Air Force and Marines during the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007. But they highlight a trend that has raised concerns both within the military and on Capitol Hill.

The bulk of the crimes involved were burglaries, other thefts, and drug offenses, but nine involved sex crimes and six involved manslaughter or vehicular homicide convictions. Several dozen Army and Marine recruits had aggravated assault or robbery convictions, including incidents involving weapons.

Both the Army and Marine Corps have been struggling to increase their numbers as part of a broader effort to meet the combat needs of a military fighting wars on two fronts. As a result, the number of recruits needing waivers for crimes or other bad conduct has grown in recent years, as well as those needing medical or aptitude waivers.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, who released the data, noted that there may be valid reasons for granting the waivers and giving individuals a second chance.

But he added, "Concerns have been raised that the significant increase in the recruitment of persons with criminal records is a result of the strain put on the military by the Iraq war and may be undermining military readiness."

The services use a waiver process to let in recruits with felony convictions, and many of the crimes were committed when the service members were juveniles.

For example, in several of the Marine sex crime cases, the offender was a teenager involved in consensual sex with another underage teen. In one Army case, a 13-year-old who threw a match into his school locker was charged with arson and had to receive a felony waiver six years later.

"Waivers are used judiciously and granted only after a thorough review," said Pentagon spokesman Lt. Col. Jonathan Withington.
He added that "low unemployment, a protracted war on terror, a decline in propensity to serve," and the growing reluctance of parents, teachers and other adults to recommend young people go into the military, has made recruiting a challenge.

According to the Army, 18 percent of the recruits needed conduct waivers in the fiscal year ending Sept. 30, 2007, compared to 15 percent in the 12-month period ending in Sept. 30, 2006.

"We are growing the Army fast and there are some waivers; we know that," said Army Lt. Gen. James D. Thurman, deputy chief of staff for operations. "It hasn't alarmed us yet."

He added that "the better part of making soldiers is about leadership. Somebody invested in me, you know. That's the beauty of the United States Army. It's about leadership ... You've got to give people an opportunity to serve."

Late last fall, the Pentagon quietly began looking for ways to make it easier for people with minor criminal records to join the military. The goal of that review is to make cumbersome waiver requirements consistent across the services — the Army, Marine Corps, Navy and Air Force — and reduce the number of petty crimes that now trigger the process.

According to the data released Monday, a bit more than half of the Army's 511 convictions in 2007 were for various types of thefts, ranging from burglaries to bad checks and stolen cars. Another 130 were for drug offenses.

The remainder, however, included two in 2007 for manslaughter, compared to one in 2006; five for sexual crimes (which can include rape, incest or sexual assaults) compared to two in 2006; and three for negligent or vehicular homicide, compared to two in 2006. Two received waivers for terrorist threats including bomb threats in 2007, compared to one in 2006.

At least 235 of the Marine Corps' 350 waivers were for various types of thefts in 2007, and another 63 were for assaults or robberies that may also have included use of a weapon. The remainder included one for manslaughter in 2007, compared to none in 2006; four for sex crimes, compared to one in 2006; and five for terror threats, including bomb threats, compared to two in 2006.

The total number of sailors who received felony waivers dipped from 48 in 2006 to 42 in 2007. Most were for a variety of thefts or drug and drunk driving convictions. Two in 2007 were for terror or bomb threats compared to three in 2006.

There were no Air Force recruits with waivers for felony convictions in 2007.

Waivers must be approved by an officer who is ranked as a brigadier general or above, and recruits must have written recommendations and endorsements from community leaders showing they would be a good bet for the military.
———
On the Net:
Defense Department: http://www.defenselink.mil


------------------------

Ok Diss, Shir, Syl, what were you in for? It's ok, you're among friends, you can fess up.

Sounds good, we can empty some of our prisons. They are costing us a ton of money anyway might as well get something in return!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCxgmPEt7Y4

I am inclined to agree. It takes a certain kind of person to be able to go shoot people. I could not do it, no matter WHO they are.

I have heard people on both sides around here arguing the point. But since felons have a hard time getting a good job once they are out and usually have limited skills anyway, might as well train them and ship them across the ocean.

I see it from a different angle. I see it as those who willingly volunteered to, in essence, give their lives for their country, should be entitled with back up from men who think similarly. The cream of the crop.

If you're being forced into service by either doing time or going to Iraq, how much is your head and heart going to be in it? And how far would you be willing to go to risk your life for another if you're a felon?

And what kinds of felons would they send? I'd be very afraid of an army made up of gang members.

I see this story and idea, essentially, as an insult to the good men and women who serve.

P.S. For the record, I'm opposed to the war.

To be honest it doesn't really matter.

1) It's an us versus them mentality and people who wouldn't normally talk to each other back home, look after each other overthere. Yes, there are always exceptions but if you're in a foxhole with a rival gang member and you see the enemy charging you, does it really matter what gang the other guy is from?

2) You are right Dori, not everyone can shoot a person. But everyone can neutralize a threat.

3) It's all in the leadership. A good officer can make the worst troops work as a successfully team. A bad officer can get your best troops killed. See the Battle of Cannae (Hannibal vs. Varro) for a good example of this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cannae

4) For myself, all I was doing was my job. Just like Jayne edits, Dori mutates, and gav sells stuff. It was my job to protect Air Force resources.

5) I am not opposed to it. Felons have a debt to pay to society. I'd rather they fight for our country and maybe learn and want to be productive members of society. Or stick them in a cell and be bubba's girlfriend for a few years. Either way my tax dollars are paying for it.

6) Finally, I am not for the Iraq War, I've seen too many of my friends put their lives on hold (luckily none of them have died) for what seems to be ungrateful people (both American and Iraqi).

7) I'm not against war. It has its uses. But the way America fights to lessen casualties, in the long run, causes more than if we followed Sun Tzu (sp?) teachings.

Those are my 2 coppers

Sylvaen wrote:

Yes, there are always exceptions but if you're in a foxhole with a rival gang member and you see the enemy charging you, does it really matter what gang the other guy is from?

It shouldn't .. but man, some of these so-called gang members are just punk ass kids who care more about themselves than other people. That's the kind of sentiment/attitude I don't want seeing going over there with the troops. But I suppose a good skirmish would set them straight -- and fast.

Eh, I suppose I can see both sides of the argument ... I just have a lot of respect for the military and hate to see them with anything but the best.

Conversely (and perversely) I abhor the war and think it horrific the loss of life we've endured over there (and the nerve of the farkin' govt' trying to cover up the number of coffins coming back, grrr).

Meh.

Jayne wrote:

It shouldn't .. but man, some of these so-called gang members are just punk ass kids who care more about themselves than other people. That's the kind of sentiment/attitude I don't want seeing going over there with the troops. But I suppose a good skirmish would set them straight -- and fast.

I would think the same, believe it or not we have a influx of punk ass kids who are not felons joining the military. They leave here with no respect for anything and once trained and put into the situation come back as better people. I think some might jump to the conclusion that the felons would "getoff" on war situations, expecially violent offenders. But I would highly doubt that would be the norm.

War sucks I agree, and we do many times get caught up in things that seem to become a mess. But you gotta remember all the good that does infact come with it and freedom being the largest! Which is something we will always need to protect and help enforce around the world. No way the world could have any peace without war.

The new kids joining in general act like punks. I started seeing it right before I got out and its only gotten worse. They have a bad work ethic. There are still plenty of good kids but they seem to be the exception.

Just a sign of the times I guess.