Should criminals serve in the military instead of prison - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Polls on politics, news, current affairs and history.

Military instead of jail

Yes
4
17%
No
17
74%
Other
2
9%
#15126769
You might get into the French Foreign Legion but then again maybe not. Contrary to common belief, they do not take criminals. If you do get in you might feel a bit like the dog who caught the car. The first four months is little short of hell on earth. The follows years of ultra strict discipline. For at least five years you cannot own a car, wear civilian clothes (even off duty), vacation outside of mainland France or get married. Later maybe some of these things.


Surprisingly, after you have three years of experience in the US military you can be actively recruited by the Australia or New Zealand services. This is a quick way to the coveted Australian citizenship. You can apply after very little service.

You could join the Russian Army as they take people from anywhere and this can lead to Russian citizenship. You will start at shit pay but in a relatively short time make a fairly good salary by Russian standards. You have to speak Russian and have a clean criminal record. I shutter to think what happens if you get caught lying.

And for our foreign friends, if you can get a green card you can join the US military provided you can pass the entrance requirements which includes fluency in English.

An American National who serves in a foreign military might not lose his/her citizenship IF they do not serve as an officer or noncommissioned officer or serve during hostilities against the US. I can tell you that you will want to be at least a noncommissioned officer if you are serving any period of time. A lot.
#15289936
Wagner worked well, and the French Foreign Legion takes also criminals, and France has the best trained killers...


The Russians use convicts since the first prusso-russian war against Friedrich the Great.

Since Lenin has Russia leadership transformed the country in a military camp, even schoolchildren have military lessons under Putin.



speach by the notorious bank robber Stalin.
#15290107
Well , this was the plot of the film , " The Dirty Dozen" . And , also during World War II , the U.S. military collaborated with the Mafia . https://allthatsinteresting.com/operation-husky-lucky-luciano So this wouldn't be unprecedented. I think though that it would have to be on a selective basis. You'd want candidates that are clever criminals , but not cruel psychopaths. Sort of like with the fictional She Spies program. A perhaps preferable alternative to military service for convicts might be martial arts instruction. That way they'd be able to gain both discipline and vocational skills , but not be equipped with deadly weapons. Yet , even this has been controversial to some , case in point. https://www.pressherald.com/2012/05/26/from-neo-nazi-to-martial-arts-teacher-oregon-mans-past-causes-concern/
#15307209
I voted yes.

The military trains people to kill. If someone is in prison for murder, why can't they put their killer instinct to some good use?

They should still have to pass the same psychological and physical exams as everyone else though. If they can pass the tests then why not let them in?

Am I really to believe that the military is only full of honorable killers? It's not. They can legally kill. Many of their deeds are just as wicked and immoral as the non-military civilian who kills on the streets.
#15307214
No, using prisoners as human shields or cannon fodder is wrong. I think a military should be voluntarily entered into. Participating in a war that you never wanted to deal with in the first place is a human rights violation. So no. I voted no.
#15307218
I think it would depend on what they would be doing. I served in the military and I would not want to think the guy in the next bed was a criminal. (He probably was anyway, but I wasn't aware of it. An important distinction)

I would have no objection to them digging my trench though. Minesweeping too, come to think of it.
#15307285
Pewty wrote:I think it would depend on what they would be doing. I served in the military and I would not want to think the guy in the next bed was a criminal. (He probably was anyway, but I wasn't aware of it. An important distinction)

I would have no objection to them digging my trench though. Minesweeping too, come to think of it.


But the military regularly engages in immoral war crimes. Are they really so much better than the murdering criminal? The main real difference is just one of legality. If you're in the military you can legally kill. How would this type of job prevent a killer civilian from performing well?
#15307292
Agent Steel wrote:But the military regularly engages in immoral war crimes. Are they really so much better than the murdering criminal? The main real difference is just one of legality. If you're in the military you can legally kill. How would this type of job prevent a killer civilian from performing well?


Sure, a criminal is a criminal, no matter where they commit their crimes.

But the question wasn't about whether or not some members of the military are criminals, or whether or not military personnel are better than criminals. It was about whether or not criminals should be forced to serve in the military as part of their sentence.
Last edited by Pewty on 09 Mar 2024 18:15, edited 1 time in total.
#15307633
annatar1914 wrote:
Of course criminals should serve, and serve in penal battalions. Depending on their crimes they should then be considered rehabilitated.



They would be mostly useless in the American army. We invest a lot in soldiers, and it wouldn't make much sense to make them cooks. More trouble than it's worth.
#15307759
Pants-of-dog wrote:From a capitalist perspective, it makes more sense to turn convicts into slaves.

Paying for prisoners, or worse, investing in soldiers, is a loss of money.

Having them churn out dollar store goods is a gain in money.


I think this hit it on the head.

The ROI simply isn't there. The amount of cost to produce a soldier is relatively high compared to many other occupations. Further, a criminal wouldn't have anything unique/special to offer in exchange for that training. i.e. The return on that training investment isn't going to be any different/higher than non-criminals. It is far better to use criminals as slaves in factories and other menial labor. Less training, and you can pay them below legal minimum wages (which are already criminally low to start with... but who cares, because they are effectively slaves).

ALL HAIL THE CAPITALIST MACHINE!

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]