I was digging in our Sq file cabinet and found a letter from a couple of years ago from a person who tried to join our squadron. Stapled to it was his membership application and a letter stating why he wanted to join CAP. In the letter he stated he had been a convicted of a "non violent, non drug related felony." But that he had changed his life, yada yada yada.....
The next page was obviously his response to the then Sq. Commander advising him that he was displeased with CAP's narrow mindedness, and that he would be forced to pursue legal action against CAP for discrimination. We all know thats going nowhere, and obviously never did.
My question is, if a prospective applicant comes to the Sq to join and openly tells us he is a convicted felon, as this person did, do we still send up the application and the check and let it run its course, or do send them on their way citing the regulation regarding convicted felons?
All new members join at the discretion of the unit commander. Even if he would pass the fingerprint test, the unit commander can still say he's not comfortable having a convicted felon in the unit.
There are things we're not allowed to discriminate on (for good reason), but no one has a right to join CAP.
Being that a felony conviction is a disqualifier from CAP, do we let it run its course and let the big CAP give him the official disqualification or do we tell him at the Sq level and send him on his way.
I have no problem telling a felon hes not joining the unit. Depending on what the issue was, I may point him to another organization where he can give back to the community.
Has anyone actually dealt with this issue?
When they first implemented the background/fingerprint check, there were a number of already members who blustered and declaimed about lawsuits. Mostly at the local level we just tried to explain to them that it was CAP policy, had always been CAP policy, and if they didn't get terminated for being a convicted felon, then we would terminate them for lying on their application. It all blew over. My personal opinion is that if they disclose it, gently inform them of the policy, and tell them that only the National Commander or the Executive Director can grant a waiver. I know of at least two waivers that have been granted, and both of those my information is that the member had his civil rights restored by competent authority prior to applying for membership.
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 28, 2007, 06:53:55 PMHas anyone actually dealt with this issue?
Sort of. We had one person fail the fingerprint check; don't remember why, but it was similar to this situation (not a violent felony, just some mistakes in the person's youth).
They didn't tell us in advance, so we didn't know until we got a letter back from NHQ. We had to take their card away and explain the situation. As I recall, the person was generally okay with it (viz. they knew their past could potentially get in the way).
As to whether we'd let "Big CAP" be the bad guy... it depends. Depends on the applicant, and the commander. I'd rather not waste his time and mine, so if I were the commander in that situation, I wouldn't allow the person to apply.
Admittedly, I don't know much about the background check. If someone stole a car in 1975, do they get rejected for CAP membership in 2007? It doesn't seem fair. I'm not sure if recency/severity of the conviction plays into the background check.
My old commander would ask if there was anything that could potentially bar membership. He would then give examples of things that he's seen. If you had something, he would make a phone call to whomever, and let you know. I think it would be better to be handled at the lowest echelon possible.
It may not seem fair, Justin, but it's the rules. One of the members I was talking about who got caught with the then new fingerprint/background check had a thirty-five year old misdemeanor conviction for disorderly conduct. Unfortunately for him, the details were still available and it was for sexual misconduct with a minor. I would have liked to keep him around, he had turned his life around and was a Red Cross First Aid Instructor who taught our first Aid classes for free. But with that record, National said 'No way."
I think it should be handled at the squadron level as much as possible - if the guy keeps pushing or threatening a lawsuit, then you can let "Big Cap" take over and handle the problem at a higher level.
There's no point in letting someone apply and write the check if they're just going to get it right back stamped "denied", when we could have told them that they aren't eligible for membership and saved everyone a lot of headache.
OK, so we can cut it off at the Sq level then tell them if they have any issues call Natl.
Quote from: Cadet Tillett on September 28, 2007, 07:18:47 PM
I think it should be handled at the squadron level as much as possible - if the guy keeps pushing or threatening a lawsuit, then you can let "Big Cap" take over and handle the problem at a higher level.
There's no point in letting someone apply and write the check if they're just going to get it right back stamped "denied", when we could have told them that they aren't eligible for membership and saved everyone a lot of headache.
You are wrong! Prior felonies do NOT mean a person can not join CAP. It means more work must be done with the application at the LOCAL level. We need waivers, and statements to go along with the application. The SQD Commander needs to call NHQ and let them know an application with possible waivers is on it's way.
Don't forget, a felony in one STATE may only be a misdemeanor in another STATE. Every opportunity should be given to a prospective member to join if he or she had made a single mistake in their past. If we are going to base accepting people on criminal records, then we should include speeding tickets (Can't drive a corporate vehicle then), filing bankruptcy (can't be on finance committies, or submitt for expense reimbursements), also lets include divorces here as well. If you can't keep your family together, how are you supposed to make your SQD run smoothly?. While we are at it, we should also include illegal drug testing with the application. You can't let the guy in that bounced 3 checks 50 years ago and got a felony (but no jail time), but you will allow the clean-cut METH head who hides her addiction very well in. The whole thing is a double standard.
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 28, 2007, 07:45:38 PM
OK, so we can cut it off at the Sq level then tell them if they have any issues call Natl.
No......becasue they are allowed to ask for a waiver from NHQ!
CANT CUT ANYTHING OFF AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
I would let them apply and let NHQ make the call. I would, of course, tell them that it was a longshot.
;D ...OK River...Thanks.
I do suppose that I probably wouldn't go that far for them if the felony was something that obviously wouldn't fly (murder, child-related). It would have to be a bit of a judgement call.
Quote from: RiverAux on September 28, 2007, 08:00:07 PM
I would let them apply and let NHQ make the call. I would, of course, tell them that it was a longshot.
It might help to compile a packet to accompany the application to National. As I said elsewhere, a bad check is a felony in Florida (not always, but sometimes).
Sheesh, Mikey, you are going to get labeled as a bleeding heart liberal.
Thats the best kind of liberal: Bleeding!
Major Lord
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 28, 2007, 07:51:12 PM
No......becasue they are allowed to ask for a waiver from NHQ!
CANT CUT ANYTHING OFF AT THE LOCAL LEVEL.
Yes you can. Any application can be denied at the local level without ever being submitted to National. That's why the unit commander must sign off on each application, and why each squadron must have a membership review committee. The right to send in a CAP application for membership doesn't exist. It's a privilege, and the first step is having your application accepted by a unit commander.
They're not allowed to ask for a waiver if the unit commander doesn't approve them to apply to become a member of their unit in the first place.
So heres another question......
Lets say the person gets in. Im curious what jobs they may be excluded from? You cant have a pilots license with a felony conviction. Cant have an EMT license. Counter Drug Ops are out. Are there any other duties that by the nature of the training requirements that a felon would be prevented from taking part in?
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 28, 2007, 08:48:13 PM
So heres another question......
Lets say the person gets in. Im curious what jobs they may be excluded from? You cant have a pilots license with a felony conviction. Cant have an EMT license. Counter Drug Ops are out. Are there any other duties that by the nature of the training requirements that a felon would be prevented from taking part in?
Depending on the felony, they'd be barred from working with cadets I would imagine. That, with what you already listed, pretty much cuts out most of the possible things they could do.
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 28, 2007, 06:53:55 PM
Being that a felony conviction is a dis-qualifier from CAP, do we let it run its course and let the big CAP give him the official disqualification or do we tell him at the Sq level and send him on his way.
Being a convicted felon is NOT a disqualifier....it just has to have NHQ approval.
Depending on the situation, assuming someone at the unit level wanted to back it, they could pursue it up the chain.
But as was pointed out before....if the unit commander does not want you...you can't join....you can't even transfer with our the gaining CC's okay.
I think our membership rules are going to bite us in the xxx, first we are a Quasi-US Government entity, does don't ask don't tell apply? if the membership committee disapproves of an applicant are the committee members liable for a race or sexual preference lawsuit. Can an organization that receives over 20 million a year refuse membership to someone who has a disability (including mental health). Our NCIC background check tells us little other than the person may have been entered into the system, some states never entered data into the system that is over 20 years old. I mean what are we going to do if a Transvestite or a transgender person wants to join knowing they will be denied by the committee, most likely with his lawyer sitting in the background. The boy scouts in California have been kicked out of many public facilities because of this, including county and city facilities.
No, Dont ask Dont tell doesnt apply to CAP. Just like it doesnt apply to High School ROTC. I actually know a couple gay CAP members (And No..Im not PMing anyone). And we dont DQ someone based on race or sexual preference either. Not to mention I know several physically disabled CAP members also. Criminal history has always been accepted as a reason to DQ someone. If a transgender person wanted to join CAP, theres no policy to prevent it.
Hopefully, if your a Sq Commander youve been educated to know that when you DQ someone at the Sq level, you better have a valid reason, not just writing "because i said so" in the remarks section.
I dealt with waivers at National before. I had a woman apply (mom of cadet) who shared with me the fact that she had a 26-year old felony conviction for armed robbery. I went to the trouble of writing for all the conviction records, police reports, and corrections records, and put them all in a packet. (She was driving a car that her then-boyfriend stole, and waited while he robbed a carry-out). I also had her get statements from her current civilian employer, where she had worked since her release from prison, and attach a statement of her own, detailing the fact that she was 19 at the time of conviction, and made some bad choices. (Selection of a bad boyfriend AND a bad lawyer!)
National waivered her conviction. I kept her for two years until her cadet daughter went to college, and I lost her with the cadet.
Great story, Kach. I hope you can tell us that she turned out to be a productive member.
And there are 17 year olds who have made the decision to defend their county also. Instead, she chose to be the driver of a get away car at age 19.
I dont get it. She admits she was driving a get away car as an adult, and her conviction was the result of a bad lawyer?
Not defending her since I wasn't there and don't know the details...but did she know what he was doing inside?
Quote from: floridacyclist on September 29, 2007, 08:26:37 PM
Not defending her since I wasn't there and don't know the details...but did she know what he was doing inside?
If she had a really
GOOD lawyer, it would have become immediately apparent that she did not. >:D
One way or the other, she had twenty-six years to ruminate on her transgression, and apparently never transgressed again. Can't you find any Christian (or Jewish) forgiveness in your heart?
Im all for forgiveness, but her spiritual well being isn't my responsibility nor is is up to CAP. She can feel better about herself somewhere or go visit a pastor.
Quote from: Flying Pig on September 29, 2007, 08:48:11 PM
Im all for forgiveness, but her spiritual well being isn't my responsibility nor is is up to CAP. She can feel better about herself somewhere or go visit a pastor.
One of the best and most effective CAP members I know is a City of Miami Cop that was busted and convicted about twenty years ago. I would catalog all his accomplishments, but I don't want to sufficiently identify him so that
you can figure out who he is.
Hes a cop now?
Guys
I work at one of the largest Juvenile Halls in the country and I kid you not, the Military recruiters are here all the time looking to recruit kids into the military.
The US military has a system of weighing criminal records. Felonies are usually a no-go while misdemeanors are usually fine. However, the military can get waivers for specific situations and currently, the US Army is working all their waiver might to get as many recruits as possible. They are waiving many felonies, including recent, violent ones. Is it good? I don't think it is, but that's just me. The Army needs soldiers badly and they believe these people can be of service to them and the country. I guess we'll wait and see how this one turns out. By the way, the USAF tends to be much more strict on this issue since they don't have much of a shortage of manpower or potential recruits. They have the luxury of saying "no" to most criminal records.
Quote from: Skyray on September 29, 2007, 04:26:12 AM
Great story, Kach. I hope you can tell us that she turned out to be a productive member.
She was good, gave freely of her time, but was in the program for some mother-daughter bonding. When the daughter left for college, the mom non-renewed.
Quote from: floridacyclist on September 29, 2007, 08:26:37 PM
Not defending her since I wasn't there and don't know the details...but did she know what he was doing inside?
I did not question her extensively. The record spoke for itself. I presume that she did.
The point is, felonies CAN be waivered. I sent the stuff... statements, reports, everything, along with a letter explaining her situation from me, right along with her application, fingerprint card, and check. When she got her Temporary card, I called National, and was advised that the waiver for the robbery was approved, and if nothing else unfavorable popped up, that she would get the Permanent card.
Recent felonies, probably not. Sex with children, No Way! And... if the prospective member conceals the felony until it is discovered, THEN requests a waiver, I kinda doubt it.
I had one other cool cadet mom... she had worked as a stripper. GAWD, did I try to recruit her!
I always thought that commanding a cadet squadron in an inner-city area has to be the best experience I ever had in the military. There was never a dull moment with those guys.
They could make a great movie about a unit like that. Or a TV series.
Quote from: JohnKachenmeister on September 30, 2007, 02:54:17 AM
The point is, felonies CAN be waivered. I sent the stuff... statements, reports, everything, along with a letter explaining her situation from me, right along with her application, fingerprint card, and check.
I too have had a prior felon as a member.
At age 19 he got busted on drug charges and spent 2 years in prison. Then, 15 years later he was a professional firefighter, married, father of three, respectable citizen, etc. I wrote a letter to NHQ, sent it along with a statement from his fire department chief, copies of criminal and court records, and his membership application. His membership was approved and he was active for about 4 years until his sons graduated and moved on.
Quote from: wingnut on September 30, 2007, 02:12:06 AM
Guys
I work at one of the largest Juvenile Halls in the country and I kid you not, the Military recruiters are here all the time looking to recruit kids into the military.
And if you notice, they're only going after the ones that have misdemeanors. Waivers are much easier to get for a misdemeanor.
Most felonies are pretty hard to get waivers for. And even then, it's very, very hard for somebody with a felony record to get a security clearance, which many military jobs require.
^ Juvenile records are sealed. When the military runs their "basic background check" nothing will show up. However, I personally don't like them recruiting from Juvenile Detention Centers. I also had a guy (kid) that was given a choice by the judge.....join the Army, or go to prison. He choose the Army, the court expunged his criminal record then the Army ran their checks. Needless to say, I busted him on multiple shoplifting events at the PX. I walked into his room, and he had stacks of unopened Cd's, a laptop and some shoes that went missing from the PX. I also busted his room mate , as he knew what was going on but failed to turn his friend in. I hate thief's.
I am an antique, and I was in the Marine Corps back when lots of rural judges considered "Or you can join the Marine Corps" a viable sentencing alternative. Most of them got jerked straight in basic and turned out to be good marines--all they needed was a little structure. The truly bad mostly didn't make it out of boot camp.
Quote from: Skyray on September 30, 2007, 07:58:33 PM
I am an antique, and I was in the Marine Corps back when lots of rural judges considered "Or you can join the Marine Corps" a viable sentencing alternative. Most of them got jerked straight in basic and turned out to be good marines--all they needed was a little structure. The truly bad mostly didn't make it out of boot camp.
If it wasn't for this type of thinking, my nephews psychiatrist wouldn't have been there to help him. The doctor was a kid who was given a second chance through the Marines. It turned him around to go work with kids.
Unfortunately, although people have been turned around in the past, with todays criminals, drug use often comes hand in hand with their criminal activity. And often the crimes are committed to support the drugs. Thats not my opinion, thats from 10 years working as a cop and working dope.
Not to mention that 30 years ago, NCO's had a lot more freer hand in turning around those problem children.
Not saying today is better or worse...it's just different.
Quote from: lordmonar on September 30, 2007, 11:56:40 PM
Not to mention that 30 years ago, NCO's had a lot more freer hand in turning around those problem children.
Not saying today is better or worse...it's just different.
Cap'n Harris can probably relate with me the old adage that 'the Ooooold Air Force was the best Air Force', compared to today. Just like he said... it's just different. Keep a copy of the fictional AFI 22-102,
Wall-to-Wall Counseling of Air Force Personnel (or whatever the correct series is; I've seen variations such as 36-106) under glass marked 'BREAK IN CASE OF EMERGENCY'.
;D
Step 1. Select location for counseling....locked laundry room, behind the motor pool, and the rifle ranges, being prime locations so you my have to schedule with other NCO's to insure a private "conversation". ;D
Step 2. Gather your counseling tools....brass knuckle, 2x4's and other object that leave marks are discouraged but are allowed. >:D
Quote from: lordmonar on October 01, 2007, 02:50:05 AM
Step 1. Select location for counseling....locked laundry room, behind the motor pool, and the rifle ranges, being prime locations so you my have to schedule with other NCO's to insure a private "conversation". ;D
Step 2. Gather your counseling tools....brass knuckle, 2x4's and other object that leave marks are discouraged but are allowed. >:D
A bag of oranges applied to the midsection (prn) doesn't leave any impressions except to the mind.
Quote from: mikeylikey on September 30, 2007, 07:29:05 PM
^ Juvenile records are sealed. When the military runs their "basic background check" nothing will show up. However, I personally don't like them recruiting from Juvenile Detention Centers. I also had a guy (kid) that was given a choice by the judge.....join the Army, or go to prison. He choose the Army, the court expunged his criminal record then the Army ran their checks. Needless to say, I busted him on multiple shoplifting events at the PX. I walked into his room, and he had stacks of unopened Cd's, a laptop and some shoes that went missing from the PX. I also busted his room mate , as he knew what was going on but failed to turn his friend in. I hate thief's.
Unfortunately this is not true, I work as a recruiter for the Army NG (what most would consider the most lenient of the services, wavier-wise) and your juvenile record will most certainly come up when we run your LEDS checks...happens all the time
Folks, a person is responsible for their actions at all times. If a child committs a felony, I have to ask why that was even possible? Where were the parents/guardians. Often times some student in class, who robbed a local home (not a house...a "home"), are treated as the victim. Why was the kid unsupervised? Where was the parent? Did the kid sneak out (in which case there is malicious intent all around)?
I know for a fact that, even with parents aside, students in school are told that robbing, cheating and drugs are wrong from as young as Kindergarden. There is no excuse for people to claim they don't know better. They, therefore, have to face the music.
If a 22 year-old steals a car in the 1970s and is convicted by a jury of their peers, that person was responsible for that crime and has to live with it.
Each day I find myself lecturing at least one student on what is the "right path" and what is the "wrong path." Parents and guardians have the greater role...we spend lots of time outright telling them the consequences for their acts.
If a person cannot, will not, listen to collected wisdom, then the price is high.
Youthful indiscretion only means mature consequences later. Don't excuse stupidity and criminal acts because they were young when they did it; it won't undo the crime, especially a felony.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 02, 2007, 04:39:01 PM
students in school are told that robbing, cheating and drugs are wrong from as young as Kindergarden.
Hence my interest in Criminal and Civil law. I do remember this, and what the good Major is saying is true. If an 8 year old kid breaks into a "home", or steals something from someone else, they need to be treated like a criminal (in theory that's why they are if they committed the crime), not like a victim. Not only would this show them that crime doesn't pay and that there are consequences for their actions, but it would be another good start to get them to be production members of society. When I was younger, I accepted my punishments, and learned from my mistakes. I was fortunate.
As far as parents are concerned Major Carrales, that's an issue that needs to be addressed by the law. Some cities in Ohio hold the parents responsible in addition to the child(ren), and that's a great policy. It's a legal smack in the rear end to get up, and manage your child(ren).
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 02, 2007, 04:53:28 PM
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 02, 2007, 04:39:01 PM
students in school are told that robbing, cheating and drugs are wrong from as young as Kindergarden.
Hence my interest in Criminal and Civil law. I do remember this, and what the good Major is saying is true. If an 8 year old kid breaks into a "home", or steals something from someone else, they need to be treated like a criminal (in theory that's why they are if they committed the crime), not like a victim. Not only would this show them that crime doesn't pay and that there are consequences for their actions, but it would be another good start to get them to be production members of society. When I was younger, I accepted my punishments, and learned from my mistakes. I was fortunate.
As far as parents are concerned Major Carrales, that's an issue that needs to be addressed by the law. Some cities in Ohio hold the parents responsible in addition to the child(ren), and that's a great policy. It's a legal smack in the rear end to get up, and manage your child(ren).
The main problem with Juvenile justice is that it teaches children that they can "keep getting away with it." A kid break into a home, steals property, sells it off and sells drugs; instead of truly correcting the problem they are given a "slap on the wrist" and returned to school. Then, if they spend a nigth in Juvenile Hall, they are enboldened by the effort and become "heros" to the others.
I have a probation officer, becomes a status symbol.
Then they turn 18 and...wah!!! suddenly they are "victims" of an "oppressive society." Bravo Sierra! They are victims of a lazy and apthetci society unwilling to face realities.
The excuse, "they are just kids" or "boy will be boys" doesn't cut it anymore.
Whereas when I was a kid, back in the late 1970s/early 1980s, childhood ended in the 9th grade and more ADULT THEMEs didn't start until that freshman year; these days that "adult awareness" is coming as early as 8 years old. The result, more adult problems at younger ages, like real crimes...murders, drug pedling and larsony of all types as well as pregnant 5th graders (of which there are more and more, its sad when I get numerous two time 7th graders come to the 8th grade with three kids...and this is a rural school).
These are social problems that Economic and Political soultions cannot address...it seems.
That, my dear CAP Officers and Cadets, is what we face.
And with that sir, I say that is why CAP should crack down on the cadets AND officers, and let nothing pass. I personally believe in the "Two Strike Rule". The first time you get reprimanded. The Second time, you're out.
I feel bad for the pregnany 5th graders you mentioned, but I would like to point out that it doesn't matter where it is. I understand that it is more common in inter-city, but all you need is one negative force to influence and entire community.
So how do we get a hold of our society and make it better? Good question, no answer.
I don't consider myself a bleeding-heart and in fact probably have tougher attitudes toward crime than many in here. For example, I don't oppose the death penalty on moral grounds, but simply because I think it is too easy....I don't think they should simply exit stage left, but should have to live the rest of their life with a complete loss of freedom, which to me is a fate worse than death. At the same time, if they want to execute a murderer, it doesn't hurt my feelings, I just don't think that death is the worst punishment we can give him. No, I do not advocate torture...we're better than that, just literally lock them up and feed them sufficiently until they die. If they go crazy, it's not like they're going anywhere and society hasn't really lost that much when they lost them.
I do think however that many (far from all) crimes should be able to be put in the past. To me it is simple management by objective. Is our objective to punish everyone and hold them forever accountable or to build a better society? By not giving folks a way to redeem themselves, are we hurting society in the process by A) Denying society of these people's contributions and B) Beating these people down to the point that they lose track of the light at the end of the tunnel and give up on being as productive as they could be?
Some crimes should never be forgotten....child molestation, rape, first-degree murder, armed robbery etc. Once someone has shown themselves capable of overtly hurting other people to that extent, I could really care less if they rot in prison. It's the less serious crimes I'm talking about..the ones where the victims aren't as apparent and where someone with a bit more maturity and re-education might begin to recognize the real reason why those things aren't allowed...drugs, non-violent theft, many white-collar crimes etc and actually make changes in the way they live and view the world as they grow and mature.
This isn't about what may be best or worst for the criminal, but the net cost to society. As a whole, which course of action is best for society if we have a 12yo kid who walked by a car with the keys in the ignition and took it for a joyride?
A)We are all tough with him and lock him up for several years before turning him loose with no social skills, a very dim future and an extremely high risk of redecividism ....but we were tough and we solved the problem by gawd.
or
B) We throw the book at him from a social standpoint....counseling, remove him from the environment that he's in (or seek help for the parents that may be overwhelmed and under-skilled), assign him to a mentor who tracks him, and for punishment assign him to weekends of hard physical labor to pay back society for causing them trouble...and if he keeps his nose clean for XX number of years, his record gets wiped clean.
Once we put our emotions and thirst for revenge and justice aside, which way is best for us overall?
As a parent, I have often found myself telling my kids "I am very disappointed in you and am very angry with what you have done. You will be punished severely. However, we will also get through this and you will be given an opportunity to earn my trust back....but it will take time and it may be rough in the meantime". I at least gave them hope of learning a lesson and moving on....and I think that these conversations were much more productive in the long run than "Dude, you have seriously screwed up and will have this held over your head for the rest of your life with no chance of ever forgetting it." Once someone loses hope, they lose all motivation to do the right thing as well.
At one point, we were experimenting with restriction as discipline and it wasn't working because they were getting on restriction faster than they were getting off...they saw no point in behaving because they still had so many restriction sentences stacked up that they couldn't see the freedom waiting at the end. Once we went to push-ups or several hours of hard labor with immediate release after that, they straightened up immediately as while the consequences were strict, they could see past them and recover.
Society in general should think past the end of a pending sentence and consider what kind of person comes out of jail before we send a kid in. It's not as black and white as we would like to think and it has very little to do with what is fair to the criminal, which is actually a very low priority on my list.
I have no problem with letting people redeem themselve, just not in CAP. There are many organizations where they can participate. The Air Force Auxiliary shouldnt be one of them.
I will reiterate again what I have pointed out. The majority of SAR is conducted by law enforcement agencies. CAP will find itself no longer participating when word gets out that we allow felons. In cadet programs, I dont know of many parents who want their kids being taught by a felon regardless of how long it has been. I will not be put in a poisition nor allow anyone in my unit to be placed under scrutiny by an outside agency because CAP has decided it needs to let criminals have second chances. You will start seeing other agencies placing additional requirements on CAP members outside of our regular requirements. People do recover from past lives of crime and they do move on, but its not CAP's responsibility. A felony conviction is not a"mistake" in ones past. It is a crime that someone commited with intent to commit that crime. In order to be convicted the primary element is proving one had the intent to commit the crime. People arent convicted for "mistakes" although they like to convince themselves they were.
I hear the same argument from law enforcement candidates who have had past convictions and are DQ'd. There first response is that people change, and people should be given second chances. And you know what? They are right. But there are organizations where that second chance isn't appropriate. Missions in CAP are and can be techinical and dangerous. Our members have died performing their duties. This is not an arena for second chances.
I dont care about rehabilitation or what happens to them when they get out. We are over flowing with money and programs to help people when they get out. I see Probation Officers and Parole Agents practically begging people to enroll in programs and job training. It isnt the job of the government to dislodge your head from your rectum. Jail or Prison is punishment. You dont learn your lesson, you get to go back even longer. You do something really bad, we dont need you breathing our air anymore. The Politics aside, the issue with felons being allowed in CAP has nothing to do with punishment or forgiveness, liberal or conservative. It has to do with a responsibility that we will provide, as best we can, trained members who have a history of making good choices. And the best system we have starts with excluding from our ranks people who have criminal histories. Sure people will argue divorces or bankruptcies should be included, but in reality that isn't a road we can travel down, nor does the same type of person who gets divorced going to necessarily be the same person who will sell meth for extra cash, or the person who files bankruptcy going to embezzle money.
There is no right to be in CAP. And if serving in a Squadron Commander position, none will ever join CAP through my unit. I will be more than happy to direct them to other community organizations where they can feel good about themselves and give back to society. For those of you who think Im to harsh, please post your Squadron name and address so we can direct future felony applicants to your unit.
I'm not referring to CAP specifically, but society in general. Yes, CAP needs to follow the same general guidelines as LE agencies when it comes to standards. I just think that for many non-violent crimes, those standards should allow for eventual full redemption and re-integration into society, but only as long as the person plays well in the sandbox of life, say for 10 years. This would give convicted criminals greater motivation to straighten up and fly right which to me is a much greater goal than simple punishment.
And yes, I do care what happens to them after they get out...we still have to live with them and I'd much rather have a neighbor working on getting his life in order with an achievable goal in sight than a neighbor who has given up on ever being like others because society has dictated that he will always be thus.
Of course, you are always going to have those who simply cannot live by society's rules regardless of how hard you try to help them and for them we just need to lock them away for good until they die of natural causes, whatever it takes to keep them away from the rest of us.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 03, 2007, 05:11:27 AMA felony conviction is not a"mistake" in ones past. It is a crime that someone commited with intent to commit that crime. In order to be convicted the primary element is proving one had the intent to commit the crime. People arent convicted for "mistakes" although they like to convince themselves they were.
Robert,
I understand that you were trying to simply a complex area of criminal law, but if you will permit a gentle correction. While there are a number of "specific intent" felonies in California where the proof has to show that a person committed a prohibited act with a specified specific intent or mental state, the majority of felonies are so-called "general intent" felonies. In a general intent felony, the proof need only show that a person willfully committed a prohibited act. Their subjective intent is irrelevant. Indeed, such crimes do not even require that the criminal know that their actions were against the law.
As a practical matter, that is the best way to enforce a "ignorance of the law is no excuse" policy.
Example: "Possession for Sale" of a controlled substance requires proof not only of possession but also that the possessor had the specific intent to sell the drugs (as opposed to stocking up for personal use.)
Example: "Simple Possession" of a controlled substance requires proof only that a person knowingly possessed a usable amount of a controlled substance. They are still guilty if they thought they were possessing coke but had meth instead, or possessed (unprescribed) oxycodone tablets even if they didn't know it was a felony to do so.
In California, both are normally classified as felonies. But generally the "specific intent" felonies are among the more serious.
In general, I concur that most folks with a felony background are better off pursuing their rehabilitation elsewhere. But I think there is a place for some folks who have proven their rehabilitation and have a skillset beneficial to the organization. If the crime was 30 years ago, or if the person has received a pardon, etc, are factors a unit membership board and NHQ should consider in approving membership and/or a waiver.
Thank you for your service.
Ned Lee
Former CAP legal officer
So! can Bill Clinton be a member of CAP??
Quote from: wingnut on October 03, 2007, 11:20:50 PM
So! can Bill Clinton be a member of CAP??
That has CPPT violation written all over it.
Quote from: wingnut on October 03, 2007, 11:20:50 PM
So! can Bill Clinton be a member of CAP??
Only if he gets readmitted to the Arkansas Bar.
Yes, a waiver can be given by NHQ. I am a convicted felon with a drug possession charge 5 years ago. I also have six misdemeanor convictions ranging from assault and battery to petty theft. When my background check came back unapproved, I wrote a letter to NHQ and eventually was approved for membership.
Boy, I'm not sure I would have approved that, especially since the charge was so recent.
I seriously think you are a troll, but I am going to ask you a question like you are not. It has always been my understanding that a felony conviction was incompatible with having a pilot's license. Your handle is alabamapilot. Are you a pilot, and if so, did you report your felony to the FAA?
Quote from: alabamapilot1952 on October 04, 2007, 12:45:57 AM
I am a convicted felon with a drug possession charge 5 years ago. I also have six misdemeanor convictions ranging from assault and battery to petty theft. When my background check came back unapproved, I wrote a letter to NHQ and eventually was approved for membership.
Quote from: Skyray on October 04, 2007, 01:19:54 AM
I seriously think you are a troll.
I gotta agree; something wrong here. CAPR 39-2 is very clear here and yes, I'm sure waivers can be obtained, but that clause which reads "Conviction of a felony - - - " is there for a reason.
I served as the orientation officer for my former squadron until I was recruited to serve at wing. All new potential members had to go through me prior to even speaking to the unit commander. Trust me, my friend, you wouldn't have gotten past me; not for a second.
Quote from: alabamapilot1952 on October 04, 2007, 12:45:57 AM
Yes, a waiver can be given by NHQ. I am a convicted felon with a drug possession charge 5 years ago. I also have six misdemeanor convictions ranging from assault and battery to petty theft. When my background check came back unapproved, I wrote a letter to NHQ and eventually was approved for membership.
Something smells funny here....almost like a setup of some sort?
I personally know of CAP members who, having recieved a full Pardon from the Governor of the state of conviction, are now NOT convicted felons because the pardon sets aside the conviction under the law.
The charges were non-violent non-kid offensive - pardons are not just handed out like candy either.
In any event, the law says they are not felons and they dont even have to report the past history in most cases.
I know of 2 who now have permits to carry a concealed weapon.
Point being, there is a remedy to the disability of status as a conicted felon - its called a pardon.
Alabama Pilot....
You cant possess a pilots license with a felony conviction. Can you explain that?
Fair warning: Remain professional about this, guys...
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 04, 2007, 03:50:14 PM
Alabama Pilot....
You cant possess a pilots license with a felony conviction. Can you explain that?
Would the FAA taken it away if the felony conviction came after receiving the pilot's license?
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 11:10:28 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 04, 2007, 03:50:14 PM
Alabama Pilot....
You cant possess a pilots license with a felony conviction. Can you explain that?
Would the FAA take it away if the felony conviction came after receiving the pilot's license?
There is a questionnaire with every medical where it asks about encounters with the law, and it wants stuff as innocent as parking tickets. Put down a felony, and I think the doctor has to deny your medical and notify Oklahoma City. So the answer to your question is yes.
Quote from: Skyray on October 05, 2007, 04:04:07 PM
Quote from: ♠Recruiter♠ on October 04, 2007, 11:10:28 PM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 04, 2007, 03:50:14 PM
Alabama Pilot....
You cant possess a pilots license with a felony conviction. Can you explain that?
Would the FAA take it away if the felony conviction came after receiving the pilot's license?
There is a questionnaire with every medical where it asks about encounters with the law, and it wants stuff as innocent as parking tickets. Put down a felony, and I think the doctor has to deny your medical and notify Oklahoma City. So the answer to your question is yes.
Most ME's that I've talked to will defer it to OKC for them to figure it out. My first medical, I was honest and listed the few small, stupid things I did as a younger kid. Sealed records, expunged, etc etc, but I didn't want it to bite me in the ass later in life. He deferred it to OKC, and, while using AOPA's help to move things along, OKC issued me a medical a few months later.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 04, 2007, 03:50:14 PM
Alabama Pilot....
You cant possess a pilots license with a felony conviction. Can you explain that?
I never knew that! Wow......it's almost like you "do time" for your crimes, then spend the rest of your life "doing time". They should just come out and say, if you are convicted of a felony, you are no longer a citizen.
Quote from: mikeylikey on October 06, 2007, 03:05:11 AM
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 04, 2007, 03:50:14 PM
Alabama Pilot....
You cant possess a pilots license with a felony conviction. Can you explain that?
Wow......it's almost like you "do time" for your crimes, then spend the rest of your life "doing time".
There's a lesson here isn't there? Don't commit a felony. End of story!
Mikey:
if you are convicted of a felony, you are no longer a citizen.
Actually that is an extremely accurate analysis. No civil rights.
Interesting discussion.... wrong but interesting.
I just took a look through the CFR's and the ONLY law relating to convictions and deniability of a certificate states, in a nutshell, that a conviciton for drug/alcohol offenses can be used to deny or revoke a certificate for only up to 1 year from the date of conviction.
Then it occurs to me that no one has cited any reg or law prohibiting a convicted felon from getting a pilot license.
In fact there is no such law.
A convicted felon CAN (and many DO) obtain a pilot license.
Cite me a specific statute that says otherwise. ;D
Quote from: DHollywood on October 06, 2007, 04:43:42 AM
Interesting discussion.... wrong but interesting.
I just took a look through the CFR's and the ONLY law relating to convictions and deniability of a certificate states, in a nutshell, that a conviciton for drug/alcohol offenses can be used to deny or revoke a certificate for only up to 1 year from the date of conviction.
Then it occurs to me that no one has cited any reg or law prohibiting a convicted felon from getting a pilot license.
In fact there is no such law.
A convicted felon CAN (and many DO) obtain a pilot license.
Cite me a specific statute that says otherwise. ;D
Actually if I can use the story of Fredrick (Rik) Luytjes Jr.
TRAFFICKING -The Boom and Bust of the Air America Cocaine Ring (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE2DE163DF934A35752C0A966958260) By Berkeley Rice.
Conviction for cocaine smuggling with 10 year sentence cut for various reasons.
Mr Luytjes Still has an ATP and is now running a business seeking sunken treasure.
From Landings.com:
Airmen Database Search Result
Name : LUYTJES, FREDERIK JOHN
Airman's Address : <witheld> FL,
FAA Region : Southern
Date of Medical : Sep, 2006
Class of Medical : 2
Expiration of Class 2 : Sep, 2007
Airman Certificates : Airline Transport Pilot
Airplane Single Engine Land
Commercial Pilot Privileges only
Airplane Multi Engine Land and Sea
Airplane Single Engine Sea
I'm coming late to this discussion, but in reviewing what's been said, I think there's some misunderstandings. First, Pardons, along with other forms of Clemency, are done the the Executive branch. That is, the Governor or President issues them. They do not effect conviction status, but go to the imposition of sentence. I.e.: They can release you from prison, restore civil rights, etc. However, they don't seal the record.
Sealing and Expungement, which do seal the record, are judicial actions done through the Court. You have to file a petition in the Court and usually the Prosecutor's office must agree to the sealing or .
The other fact to be aware of is that not every "conviction" is the same. Courts can decide whether or not to "adjudicate" a defendant. "Adjudication" can be thought of as a formal finding of guilt. Often, in non-violent 3rd degree Felonies there will be a withhold of "adjudication", especially where the case is settled by entry of a plea, which the vast majority of cases are.
Yes, you can have a felony conviction and hold a pilot's license.
I have no problem with convicted felons in Civil Air Patrol. Granted, the nature of the crime and evidence of the person's rehabilitation should be examined before granting membership, but I would oppose any blanket prohibition. The reality is that good people sometimes violate the law and as a society we must allow for redemption. Otherwise, why should a criminal, once convicted, ever care about following the laws if he or she is forever relegated to non-person status? The truth is that people can, and sometimes do, change. We should encourage that change and not constantly remind people of their past mistakes.
Lastly, we should all be concerned that the "Land of the Free" has the largest prison population, but in number and percentage, of any nation in the history of the world.
We also have one of the most civilized nations with the greatest freedoms and liberties, not to mention one of the largest populations.
I am all for redemption, just not in an organization that deals with ES, SAR, Counter Drug, Homeland Security and Cadet Programs.
I do have issues...no PROBLEMS...with "convicted felons in Civil Air Patrol."
My political theories will not allow it...
We live in a condition that mirrors the Lockian Social Contract, a convicted felon has negated that contract. We are not talking about "minor crimes" here, but felonies. C'mon people, these are offenses that have been determined to be "serious."
As an adult, everyone one of us is not given a "blank check" or "get out of jail free card" because we "were ignorant of the law." If one is convicted of a felony, this is not minor. We can't excuse it because "it was the result of a youthful silliness."
Yes, "we should all be concerned that the "Land of the Free" has the largest prison population, but in number and percentage, of any nation in the history of the world." But that does not mean we excuse criminals because they are a large portion of the population.
Part of the problem we are having with this discussion is that the phrase "convcted felon' -- like many things in the law -- is deceptively simple and the reality is complicated and nuanced.
1. "Felony" doesn't meant the same thing in every state. Acts which are punishable as a felony in one state may only be a misdemeanor in others, and may not even be a crime at all in yet another state.
And even within a single state, the laws change over time and what used to be a misdemeanor can become a felony a decade later, or vice versa.
Example: Possession of $10 worth of marijuana in California was declared a felonly by our state legislature during the Prohibition era, and until 1976 was punishable by 1-10 years in the state prision. In 1976, the legislature declared that simple possession was a misdemeanor, and not even punishable by time in the county jail. And of course in 1996 the voters adopted an initiative that declared that "medical marijuana" possession is not even a crime.
So you'd have to feel pretty silly applying for CAP membership and disclosing a "felony drug conviction" from 1975, when if you did exactly the same thing today you couldn't even get arrested. Heck, with appropriate documentation a CAP member with a medical issue could bring marijuana to encampment!
And it is worth remembering that even today, some fairly minor transgressions can be charged as felonies in California. Examples include: shoplifting a pack of gum (if you have a prior theft conviction); theft of $50 worth of avocados (even wtih a clean record); forging a $10 check; negligently discharging a firearm (even if no one is hurt); joyriding for a couple of hours in Mom's car; slapping a former girlfriend/boyfriend if it produces a red mark on the skin; leaving your dog in parked car . . . . All bad things of course, but the point is that most other states would charge these same acts as misdemeanors (if at all.)
2. "Conviction" is a term of art. As others have pointed out, state practices vary widely. For the same act that result in a felony conviction in one state, you might be "diverted" in another, or have "adjudication witheld" in a third state -- neither of which might result in a "conviction."
And you can get "unconvicted" in most states, but the procedures for record sealing, expungment, dismissals, and pardons vary widely. In California, felony probationers who successfully complete probation may apply to the court under Penal Code section 1203.4 for relief. The law is heavily weighted on the side of the convicted felon -- if he or she has completed probation and kept their nose clean, such peititions are routinely granted. The efect is that the court sets aside the guilty verdict or plea and dismisses the case. In effect the petitioner gets "unconvicted" and by law is "released from all the penalties" of the crime. (There are important exceptions for serious crimes like murder and child molest).
And as a final twist, some crimes are punishable as either a felony or a misdemeanor in the discretion of the court and/or prosecutors. Common examples include ADW and possession of methamphetamine. Persons convicted of felonies under these "wobbler" statutes can apply to the court in some states (but not all) to retroactively "reduce" their conviction from a felony to a misdemeanor. Such applications are routinely granted if the criminal has stayed clean for a period of time.
I guess the bottom line is that we all want to be fair here. But fairness normally requires that people in similar situation be treated similarly.
And I'm not sure we can do that with a simple bright line rule that "no convicted felons need apply."
In Florida, you don't even have to forge the check. Simply bouncing one is sufficient for a felony.
And bad lawyers are a major problem. I represented a "felon" on a restoration of civil rights who got convicted of assault with a deadly weapon because during a domestic argument in his home, there was a hand gun in the kitchen drawer--according to the arresting officer, "within easy reach." There was no allegation or finding that he reached for it; in fact, it stayed in the drawer during the entire altercation. My personal feeling was that it was as much in the possesion of the wife, who also lived there, as the husband who got convicted. But I was not the judge, and we have to be tough on gun crimes.
Its not complicated at all. If it was a felony when you commited the crime, its a felony. It makes no difference what it may be now. We in CAP are governed by our respective state laws. Same argumentc an go for the military or law enforcement with an aplicant telling a recruiter its not fair because in X State its only a misdemeanor and in my state its a felony.
I see law enforcement applicants who have felonies in other states where it may only be a misdemeanor in my state. Oh well, you still have a felony.
Sine we are discussing it with CAP, lets include law enforcement. If youve redeemed yourself, then why shouldnt felons be allowed to be cops and give back to society?
It is very simple to have a bright line rule that says felons need not apply. It works very well for law enforcement.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 07, 2007, 08:43:14 PM
It is very simple to have a bright line rule that says felons need not apply.
Robert,
It sure is simple. Bright line rules are designed to be simple.
As long as you're OK with two people who committed the same act being treated drastically differently, then there shouldn't be a problem.
If we simply follow a bright line rule as you suggest, you'd be OK sitting next to a guy at the squadron meeting (or at briefing at the police department) with 2 grams of marijuana
in his uniform pocket for "medical reasons", but the guy who used it for "compassionate purposes" in 1975 and got popped for a felony can't play?
As long as that seems fair, then such a rule will work fine.
Bright line rules may also tend to
diminish our protections.
Example: You work with search and seizure law everyday, I imagine. And I'll bet you have seen or at least heard of situations where a dope dealer goes free becase of what a cop might term a "technical" violation of the complex (and almost "unknowable") law of search and seizure.
If we were to enact such a bright line rule, then the dope dealer can be a CAP member (because she/he didn't get convicted due to a hypothetical police error), but the guy who got pinched for shoplifiting twice when he was 19 (the second being a "petty with a prior" felony) can't join even 30 years later with an otherwise spotless life.
These kinds of situations are probably the reason we have a little slack in our rules and permit a "case by case" waiver for applicants based on a review of the circumstances at NHQ.
Quote from: wingnut on September 29, 2007, 12:17:45 AM
I think our membership rules are going to bite us in the xxx, first we are a Quasi-US Government entity, does don't ask don't tell apply? if the membership committee disapproves of an applicant are the committee members liable for a race or sexual preference lawsuit. Can an organization that receives over 20 million a year refuse membership to someone who has a disability (including mental health). Our NCIC background check tells us little other than the person may have been entered into the system, some states never entered data into the system that is over 20 years old. I mean what are we going to do if a Transvestite or a transgender person wants to join knowing they will be denied by the committee, most likely with his lawyer sitting in the background. The boy scouts in California have been kicked out of many public facilities because of this, including county and city facilities.
Being TV or TS isn't a felony.
It is perfectly legal to bar membership to someone with a felony on their criminal record.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 07, 2007, 04:13:32 PM
We also have one of the most civilized nations with the greatest freedoms and liberties, not to mention one of the largest populations.
hmmm.....NO. Population wise and civilized.....NO. There are countires out there, that have more people, allow use of illegal drugs and have a murder rate much much lower than the United States.
The justice system in this country is very unfair to certain groups. Without getting into racial and ethnic discussion, I will say that when certain groups of people go to a jury trial, they are very rarely tried by a "jury of their peers". Come on, when I was 18 I was called for jury duty in a case where an elderly African American woman shot her husband. I was the farthest person away from being this woman's peer. (Young white kid from a middle class suburban home). Anyway.....before someone Pm's me, she was guilty and changed her plea to guilty when she and her lawyer saw the Jury, so that she could have a judge decide her fate.
Anyway......because a misdemeanor in one state may be a felony in another, and until there is a Nation wide mandate decreeing what constitutes felonies, it all depends on the particular situation I guess.
Seriously, get caught with pot in Georgia and go to jail, while getting caught with 30 times more in California and get a simple misdemeanor and end up with probation. How fair is that??
Quote from: mikeylikey on October 08, 2007, 02:20:03 AM
Seriously, get caught with pot in Georgia and go to jail, while getting caught with 30 times more in California and get a simple misdemeanor and end up with probation. How fair is that??
Ask your state legislature, they're the one's who wrote the law.
Personally I'm more concerned about someone who lies on their application. Tell me the truth and we'll discuss whether we can work around it or not. Tell me a lie and you might as well get out of my face.
My problem with bright line laws are that they are so black and white that there is absolutely no wiggle room. The same no-tolerance law that folks tout about making our schools so safe has cost one CAP cadet his school career for forgetting to take his pocketknife out of his pocket (he had been cutting haybales before school) and has a young man listed as a sexual offender because he had sex with his slightly-younger girlfriend of several years...he was just over 18 and she was just under. This kind of lack of recognition that not everything is black and white would be considered a sign of immaturity in a human being, yet we accept it in our laws as long as we're not personally affected.
I say do not automatically enact zero-tolerance anything or allow felons to join CAP, but at least make a case-by-case process available so that a real human (or several) can review the facts and make human decisions. If the crime is that bad that we don't want them, then we won't get them.
Quote from: floridacyclist on October 08, 2007, 02:56:15 AM
I say do not automatically enact zero-tolerance anything or allow felons to join CAP, but at least make a case-by-case process available so that a real human (or several) can review the facts and make human decisions. If the crime is that bad that we don't want them, then we won't get them.
No, we all know the score. We don't need the "sliding line." No need to drop the standards of the organization to allow felons.
Why are you people so eager to let these people in. If they are convicted of a felony, then they committed a crime of which they knew would chance thier lives.
Here we have this DDR program designed to fight drugs, and you people are arguning about one bag or two? Wow!!! Fact is that Drugs are illegal...why would a person have such a thing on their person?
I think Zero tolerance is justified.
^ Sorry, I was just trying to make a point that laws are different in each state. I will be the first person to stand behind the "all drug users/sellers/dealer/pushers" to Federal Prison group". I support the zero-drug policy, I used to give a presentation with some cool overhead transparencies once a year, until they forced Power-Point on me, then I gave up. So, I don't think anyone here is advocating drug use.
DON'T DO DRUGS and STAY IN SCHOOL!
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 08, 2007, 03:15:04 AM
No, we all know the score. We don't need the "sliding line." No need to drop the standards of the organization to allow felons.
Joe, you do know that the current regs do allow a waiver on a case-by case basis, right?
There are currently dozens of "felons" serving proudly in CAP. Bet you can't guess which ones.
(And for Wingnut, many gay and transgendered members as well.)
Quote
Why are you people so eager to let these people in. If they are convicted of a felony, then they committed a crime of which they knew would chance thier lives.
They probably knew their conduct was illegal, but how is that any different than you or me when we get caught speeding? What is so magical about the "felony" level. If you deliberately break the law by going 70 on the freeway, why should I trust you with CAP property?
Sometimes the slope is indeed slippery.
Where does that leave us?
Quote
Here we have this DDR program designed to fight drugs, and you people are arguning about one bag or two? Wow!!! Fact is that Drugs are illegal...why would a person have such a thing on their person?
I think Zero tolerance is justified.
Close . . .
illegal drugs are discouraged by our DDR system. And rightly so.
But
legal drugs -- like morphine or oxycontin when prescribed for pain -- are perfectly OK under our DDR program. And save lives while relieving suffering, BTW.
What do you think about states where marijuana is legal for "compassionate use'?
Did the various state legislatures and citizens who voted for initiatives just "get it wrong."?
Is it OK to pick and choose which drug laws we will follow?
Bright line rules are certainly easy to follow.
Maybe too easy in this case.
Ned Lee
Ned,
I don't know what to tell you. Many folks are too ready to pardon the truly illegal.
We are a nation of laws, not of technicalities. When standards slide again and again, we lose. We lose the glue that holds a society together under a social contract.
Before we go one, I don't know what made you to bring homosexuality into this discussion, that will do nothing but derail this since a homosexual is not a "felon." This is the first time that someone had ever tried to "beat me with a strawman."
I don't care too much about "compassionate use" because if I were to live in a state whose standards allow it, then there is no crime. If I lived in a State that does not allow it, and I know it's a felony crime, then I would be a fool to have it in my possesion. That is what you get in a Federal system that respects State Rights, one has to accept this for our system to work. It would a choice for a person to have it on their person, when they know it is wrong and illegal.
Yes, it varies from state to state, but a felony is a felony. If a person wants to have "compassionate use" they need to move to a state that allows it, not take the law into their own hands. Therein lies the integrity issue. it is the individual who must make the choice.
If we taught people true citizenship in our schools, and if they would listen, then we would have no felons.
Since you seem to want to turn this into a discussion of Illegal Drugs...
As to drugs, all drugs have a medicinal value, it is the abuse of those drugs (for recreational use or for escapes from reality that turn a person from a productive member of society into one that spends more time out of shared reality), adction to these drugs, escalation from minor to major drugs(as happens when one craves more and more "thrills" and go up to cocaine and the like) and the trafficing of those drugs deemed illegal (and the violence associated thereof) that remove those medicinal values.
In other words, the "worthless pothead" ruins it (basically every where) for the person that suffers.
You cannot tell me that this is not a problem. It is a problem to a degree with Alcohol as it is, yet still there are those that drink themselves to destruction and death. Alcohol, however, is not what we are debating here.
You guys are aware that this is a purely economic issue don't you. William Randolph Hearst owned paper mills for vertical integration with his newspapers, and thousands of acres of forests. Someone developed a cheap way to make paper out of hemp, and suddenly all the Hearst papers were screaming and pontificating about that demon weed. And the Hearst papermills kept running and making him millions of dollars. He even got du Pont into the deal with nylon rope as a substitute for hemp rope.
Mind you, I have never smoked marijuana. But it is intriguing to me how the newspapers or media can affect our lives.
Joe,
I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree here.
I am basically defending the status quo (felons normally barred from membership; exceptions considered by NHQ.)
I believe that a straight "no felonies" rule is unfair because of the lack of uniform standards, and would also deprive us of some otherwise hardworking and deserving members who could in turn save lives and help young folks learn the true meaning of citizenship.
My discussion of our patchwork of drug laws was just to illustrate the unfairness of a "no felonies" rule. It could easily have been about minor violence or property crimes which are also treated disparately nation-wide.
(And my remark about gay and transgendered members wasn't directed at you, but rather at another poster who was expressing some intolerance. I thought I had made that plain, but it bears repeating.)
Quote from: Ned on October 08, 2007, 04:54:57 AM
Joe,
I suspect we agree on far more than we disagree here.
I am basically defending the status quo (felons normally barred from membership; exceptions considered by NHQ.)
I believe that a straight "no felonies" rule is unfair because of the lack of uniform standards, and would also deprive us of some otherwise hardworking and deserving members who could in turn save lives and help young folks learn the true meaning of citizenship.
My discussion of our patchwork of drug laws was just to illustrate the unfairness of a "no felonies" rule. It could easily have been about minor violence or property crimes which are also treated disparately nation-wide.
(And my remark about gay and transgendered members wasn't directed at you, but rather at another poster who was expressing some intolerance. I thought I had made that plain, but it bears repeating.)
I to suspect that we share some political science on this issue, and that some meeting some where some day might find us fast friends.
The thing is that our type of government, where there is a GREATER WHOLE (i.e. Federal Government) and Diverse PARTS (States, even regions) where geography and demographic cause variations in moral standards; each PART's felony is equal to that of another. Thus, if one liveth Texas (where a law is thus) they cannot expect to be treated by the same laws as seen in California or Oregon. One must follow the law of their state, comparing one set of laws to another to expect standards to change is as moot as trying to point out to a police officer that a fellow in front of you was speeding. That has no bearing on the individual who was caught.
CAP has a standard, and you point out it also as a waiver, I still think a suitable punishment for a felony offender is to be denied service in an organization like CAP.
As for the homosexuality issue, I (somewhat as a defensive debate stance) took that to be a "strawman argument" you brought up to derail the issue since it was my opinion that it would attract other CAP officers to the discussion that would lead to the thread being locked. I apologize, Sir, for questioning your character.
One of my problems with any kind of bright line is that it requires you to check your brain at the door. That is just wrong.
Vee muss follow zee ruhls at ALL times letter-by-letter. Following zee ruhls iss much more important zan understanding zem or doing ze right thing for society.
Didn't Chaplain Don write an excellent article on how we relate following rules and morality?
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 08, 2007, 05:05:37 AMCAP has a standard, and you point out it also as a waiver, I still think a suitable punishment for a felony offender is to be denied service in an organization like CAP.
I agree that there are many suitable and unintended consequences of committing a felony, among them denial of membership in many organizations, but I do not see it as punishment...we are not in the justice business, so punishment is not our job. A suitable punishment has already been meted out by the court system and it is not up to us to either add or detract from that sentence. To me, it is a simple matter of determining what types of members we want and setting standards. Do we want and need the same members as Law Enforcement does? To a certain extent, yes but the vast majority of current senior members do not meet the high physical and psychological standards and don't get paid nearly as much for their CAP service as cops do so using the same yardstick and decreeing that all CAP members wil meet all of the same standards as sworn officers makes no sense. We are not law enforcement and we do not even play cops on TV.
I also agree that we do not want someone fresh out of prison in our program...or even someone who is struggling to get his life under control. We are not a rehabilitation program, nor are we a halfway house.
I would even go so far as to say that many crimes would never be waivered if I were King, especially if they involved actively hurting or threatening to hurt other people. It takes a "special" kind of person to look anyone (say an old lady or young girl) in the eye and then cause harm to them and I do not want that kind of person around my kids. Ever.
I just think that the current policy of allowing waivers is the best way as it allows each person with a mistake in their past to be reviewed by a team of human beings (who also do not want unsavory characters in our midst and will not sign off on someone that we truly do not want around) who can then decide based on the true facts rather than some bright line rule that was written with no concept of individual circumstances or unintended consequences in mind. Denying someone membership over a bounced check 40 years ago is just stupid...and unless you have never bounced a check in your life, I do not understand how you could support such a blind policy when the definition of felony is not even the same state-to-state. Let the felony conviction be a flag that states that the applicant needs further scrutiny and then decide as a human. You might be surprised how many people around you that you think would be good members (or are good members) would be otherwise ineligible under your proposal.
I really doubt that the writers of the zero-tolerance on knives policy had it in for farmboys forgetting their work knife in their pocket when they said that all knives on campus will end up in an expulsion...do you? If so, how would you justify ending a young man's hopes and dreams over an honest mistake while defending your beloved zero-tolerance on anything? BTW, I noticed that you changed knives to drugs earlier, I never said anything about drug dealers in my post.
I agree that no knives should be allowed on campus, but zero-tolerance anything with no chance of appeal is almost always a bad idea.
Quote from: Skyray on October 08, 2007, 04:50:56 AM
You guys are aware that this is a purely economic issue don't you. William Randolph Hearst owned paper mills for vertical integration with his newspapers, and thousands of acres of forests. Someone developed a cheap way to make paper out of hemp, and suddenly all the Hearst papers were screaming and pontificating about that demon weed. And the Hearst papermills kept running and making him millions of dollars. He even got du Pont into the deal with nylon rope as a substitute for hemp rope.
Mind you, I have never smoked marijuana. But it is intriguing to me how the newspapers or media can affect our lives.
I do remember reading that years ago. Hell....things would be alot cheaper if we used hemp. Think about it.......takes a tree years to grow back, takes a plant weeks to grow back. Plant fibers do produce better thread than wood fibers. I way digress here though.
I am questioning now why this topic was started. Did someone get a conviction and are now trying to keep it a secret and stay in CAP? I am a huge supporter to a yearly background check of all members. I would even go as far as unannounced drug screening fro pilots, GTL, everyone......even Cadets. The military expects it's members to be clean, CAP should be cleaner.
We should also get everyone 18+ to pass at least the confidential screening by the DOD, that is send their history and worksheets to the Defense Security Service for a determination. I KNOW THAT THIS WILL NEVER HAPPEN BECAUSE IT COSTS $$$$$$$.
Holycrap.....
speculation and conjecture, illogical syllogisms, and a touch of personal politics!
How fortunate we are that none of us have any say so over this topic, or really any topic on this forum.
One of my old squadrons meets at a county correctional facility. More specifically medium security for sex offenders. That place is full of innocent men that have turned their life around.
What a great place to do some recruiting.
by mikeylikey...
I am questioning now why this topic was started. Did someone get a conviction and are now trying to keep it a secret and stay in CAP?
I started the thread, but I can assure you I dont have any felonies Im trying to hide. We did get off topic. My origional question 5 pages ago was wondering if there were any assignments in CAP that a member would be prohibited from being a part of with a criminal record, primarily a felony. I listed a few such as CD. Now were talking about hemp vs. nylon.
As far as meeting the same requirements as law enforcement? Who said we should all meet the psychological and physical requirements as police?
It just stands to reason that if we are to look to law enforcement for our membership standards as suggested earlier, we should do it right, not pick and choose which standards we should adopt from them.
This is an interesting debate which goes to issues of public policy, how we see that nature of people, and the very nature of CAP. Having served at the Command level I can assure everyone that there are many excellent CAP members presently serving honorably who carry the stigma of past felony convictions.
There's been mention here of CAP membership as a "privilege" and I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I don't think that's a complete representation of what CAP membership is. Consider that CAP is chartered as a benevolent charitable organization. That is, we're here to provide public service. A convicted felon should not simply be punished, but should also be given an opportunity to repay his or her debt with service to the community. CAP, by the very nature of our purpose, serves as a portal for those who wish to contribute to the society. Therefore, I have no problem with convicted felons who have turned away from a life of crime serving along side me.
Lastly, I once served aside a gentleman who served time in his youth for crimes committed while in a street gang. The middle-aged man I knew was a profoundly good and decent person who shared his story with cadets as part of our program to keep kids off drugs and away from street gangs. To my knowledge we never lost a cadet because of this man and he was beloved by both parents and cadets. Maybe there are some people out there who can't get to forgiveness, but as members of a benevolent charity I sincerely hope that few CAP members are among them.
Quote from: flyboy on October 09, 2007, 02:34:29 AM
Lastly, I once served aside a gentleman who served time in his youth for crimes committed while in a street gang. The middle-aged man I knew was a profoundly good and decent person who shared his story with cadets as part of our program to keep kids off drugs and away from street gangs. To my knowledge we never lost a cadet because of this man and he was beloved by both parents and cadets. Maybe there are some people out there who can't get to forgiveness, but as members of a benevolent charity I sincerely hope that few CAP members are among them.
I have a developing theory on gangs. Gangs are "counter-society," the alternate social reality created by those that fail to forge a place for themselves in the true society.
I have know serious anti-social types that hate the idea of a "school" uniform and "buck the system." Likely because they don;t feel they are a part of it, however in gangs they will dress in those colors, obey chains-of command and sacrifice for the good of the gang.
Believe it or not, CAP fills that role for many.
This, however, does not excuse those acts committed when they wore "those colors." We all have to atone, if not for our sins religiously, then for our crimes secularly.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 09, 2007, 02:41:01 AM
This, however, does not excuse those acts committed when they wore "those colors." We all have to atone, if not for our sins religiously, then for our crimes secularly.
I agree almost completely. Understand, we're not talking about handing out memberships to prisoners, or even people on probation, but to individuals who have completed their sentence Therefore, the issue isn't about "atoning" for one's sins. It's about whether or not one can ever complete that atonement and rejoin society as a respected member, and as such join a benevolent charity called Civil Air Patrol. Thus, the question becomes, do we have the capacity to forgive? There is a line in the Babylonian Talmud that says once a man has repented that it's actually a sin to remind him of his past sins. The reason for this is that you can discourage a person such that they away from righteous behavior by constantly defining that person by who he or she used to be.
A benevolent charity? I think I just threw up on myself.
Believe it or not, I do believe that is what we are defined as on the books, or at least something very similar. Too tired and flying too low to look it up this morning.
Bottom line is that law enforcement does have a different level of public trust...we give you guys guns and ask you to enforce our laws, all of which adds up to a very awesome respnsibility. CAP is basically as stated above except that we happen to be affiliated with the Air Force. Sure, we work alongside cops at times, but so do many other agencies; in Mississippi, we had members of our ham radio club filling in as 911 dispatchers in the Emergency Command Center - all without a background check.
We do not go by the exact same standards as LE and never will...including the absolute bright-line ban on felonies, and for the type of agency that we are, the status quo of allowing felonies ONLY after a waiver is probably the most appropriate. We seem to keep forgetting that last part..that any felony applicants still have to make it past the review board, and I am sure that many do not.
Quote from: Flying Pig on October 09, 2007, 09:36:35 AM
A benevolent charity? I think I just threw up on myself.
I hope you weren't wearing your good clothes. :)
Look at CAP 20-1(E) Section A (1) which says: Civil Air Patrol, A Corporation. Civil Air Patrol (CAP) was established 1 December 1941 and is a private, nonprofit corporation of a
benevolent character, incorporated by the United States Congress on 1 July 1946 (36 USC 40301-40307).
Futhermore, if you look at the Federal Statutes creating CAP, our Constitution, and our own regulations, we're not designed to be an elistest group of military wannabes, but have the fundamental purpose of being a conduit for public service as stated in our Objects and Purpose: "b.
Encourage and develop by example the voluntary contribution of private citizens to the public welfare."Last I knew we held status as a charitable organization for tax purposes. I'm not aware of our organization paying any taxes on the money we raise. I know you can write off donations to CAP, which I think pretty much makes us a charity by just about any definition.
A brief observation:
The law enforcement "bright line" isn't really such a bright line, BTW.
In California at least, felons who have received a Certificate of Rehabilitation and a pardon can still do law enforcement work, including some positions with "peace officer" status like a probation or parole officer.
(In California, "peace officer" status is a broad classification of persons who can exercise arrest and certain other powers reserved by law. Examples include police officers, sheriffs' deputies, DA investigators, probation officers, parole officers, highway patrol types, park rangers, etc.)
QuoteThe law enforcement "bright line" isn't really such a bright line, BTW.
California has always been twenty years ahead of the rest of the country in the trek toward progressivity.
Down in Texas, the line is so bright that you can't get a law enforcement job if you were kept in after school for littering.
You guys are talking apples and oranges.
Speaking of apples and oranges, one thing to look at is the average age of new members in LE, the military, and CAP. LE and the military have mostly younger applicants who if they have done anything major would have just gotten out of jail for it and could not be trusted any further than you can throw them. CAP's applicants are usually much older (IIRC from a class this past weekend, the median age is like mid-40s) and if they have committed some youthful indiscretions (I believe that was what they called it when referring to The President's past), have had much more time to reflect, learn, become productive, and prove themselves as capable of learning to live within society's rules.
There's a difference between a 25yo who committed a crime at the age of 20 and a 60yo who did the same thing assuming both have stayed straight ever since.
Quote from: flyboy on October 09, 2007, 02:34:29 AM
This is an interesting debate which goes to issues of public policy, how we see that nature of people, and the very nature of CAP. Having served at the Command level I can assure everyone that there are many excellent CAP members presently serving honorably who carry the stigma of past felony convictions.
There's been mention here of CAP membership as a "privilege" and I understand the reasoning behind that argument, but I don't think that's a complete representation of what CAP membership is. Consider that CAP is chartered as a benevolent charitable organization. That is, we're here to provide public service. A convicted felon should not simply be punished, but should also be given an opportunity to repay his or her debt with service to the community. CAP, by the very nature of our purpose, serves as a portal for those who wish to contribute to the society. Therefore, I have no problem with convicted felons who have turned away from a life of crime serving along side me.
Maybe there are some people out there who can't get to forgiveness, but as members of a benevolent charity I sincerely hope that few CAP members are among them.
As a squadron commander, the ultimate issue to me is LIABILITY. Philosphies aside, I don't want to expose my "self" to liability by knowingly accepting a felon as a member of my squadron. Call me what you will, that's my bottom line.
I was advised when I took command to get an umbrella insurance policy, but my insurance company wouldn't issue one covering my volunteer liabilities. So I do what I can to limit my liabilities, knowing that I work with children in a highly litiginous society.
QuoteAs a squadron commander, the ultimate issue to me is LIABILITY. Philosophies aside, I don't want to expose my "self" to liability by knowingly accepting a felon as a member of my squadron. Call me what you will, that's my bottom line.
I was advised when I took command to get an umbrella insurance policy, but my insurance company wouldn't issue one covering my volunteer liabilities. So I do what I can to limit my liabilities, knowing that I work with children in a highly litigious society.
If you are sued for performing duties within the scope of your job, you should have some protection from the corporation. With what you told me about your problems with the van, I wouldn't count on it. So you raise a valid point. Maybe some of the other sea lawyers out there have a comment.
Based on the evaluation standards I've witnessed, I would be more worried about being sued by someone (or a survivor of someone) that has been hurt by someone that the CC had signed off on as qualified and later discovered to have been pencil-whipped.
Didn't pencil whipping come to an end?
Besides, someone who knows who fifinella was would never pencil whip anything.
Not saying that she would...but can she guarantee that all of her members were properly evaluated by other SETs without re-evaluating them herself? Sure, someone else might test the cadet, but her name goes on as the approver.....just like on the application of a potential new member.
Gene, you are going to turn her into a micro-manager and have her lying awake at night worrying about her liability.
Quote from: Skyray on October 11, 2007, 02:25:42 AM
Gene, you are going to turn her into a micro-manager and have her lying awake at night worrying about her liability.
I find wine takes the edge off... ;D
You can get a fine whine right here, Just look around.
I liked your other avatar better. Disney send you a cease and desist, or did you find the Wisconsin One?
A good Spatlese works for me.
Yes,I liked the other one much better too. Was it Disney? Or did one of the mods tell you it was too hot for a family website? LOL
She still has it on her profile.
I cook a lot, and I have gotten in the habit of pouring cooking sherry in a measuring cup to keep my thirst quenched while I cook. Got the idea from a comic from Louisana named Justin Wilson who said don't never cook with no wine you wouldn't drink.
Quote from: Skyray on October 11, 2007, 05:47:32 AM
She still has it on her profile.
I cook a lot, and I have gotten in the habit of pouring cooking sherry in a measuring cup to keep my thirst quenched while I cook. Got the idea from a comic from Louisana named Justin Wilson who said don't never cook with no wine you wouldn't drink.
And lots of o-ni-ons.
Quote from: floridacyclist on October 11, 2007, 05:25:09 AM
A good Spatlese works for me.
Yes,I liked the other one much better too. Was it Disney? Or did one of the mods tell you it was too hot for a family website? LOL
I have been graced with a Tedda Fifinella. No word from Disney.
Spatlese, hmmm? That
Winetasting Class Inland SAR Course is sounding better and better.
OK Lets make the Mods unhappy...Start a poll... which avitar is better.
QuoteAnd lots of o-ni-ons.
Yessir, onions and red meat. How did you know? I got used to it in prison.
Quote from: Skyray on October 11, 2007, 02:17:36 PM
QuoteAnd lots of o-ni-ons.
Yessir, onions and red meat. How did you know? I got used to it in prison.
I used to watch his cooking show. What a hoot.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 02, 2007, 04:39:01 PM
Folks, a person is responsible for their actions at all times. If a child committs a felony, I have to ask why that was even possible? Where were the parents/guardians. Often times some student in class, who robbed a local home (not a house...a "home"), are treated as the victim. Why was the kid unsupervised? Where was the parent? Did the kid sneak out (in which case there is malicious intent all around)?
I know for a fact that, even with parents aside, students in school are told that robbing, cheating and drugs are wrong from as young as Kindergarden. There is no excuse for people to claim they don't know better. They, therefore, have to face the music.
If a 22 year-old steals a car in the 1970s and is convicted by a jury of their peers, that person was responsible for that crime and has to live with it.
Each day I find myself lecturing at least one student on what is the "right path" and what is the "wrong path." Parents and guardians have the greater role...we spend lots of time outright telling them the consequences for their acts.
If a person cannot, will not, listen to collected wisdom, then the price is high.
Youthful indiscretion only means mature consequences later. Don't excuse stupidity and criminal acts because they were young when they did it; it won't undo the crime, especially a felony.
Yes, but sometimes, the law makes mistakes or profiles people. When Iwas in the Army in Hawaii, I was pulled over, and taken to jail for DUI. But guess what? I dont drink alcohol. I was tired frombeing inthe filed all week and was weaving in and out of the road. The Cop pulss me over and doesnt even give me the breath testuntil we get to jail and I am in a holding cell for 2 hours. Then he sends me onhis way without even an apology. Profiling happens. Iknow
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 12, 2007, 03:02:24 AMI was tired frombeing inthe filed all week and was weaving in and out of the road. The Cop pulss me over and doesnt even give me the breath testuntil we get to jail and I am in a holding cell for 2 hours. Then he sends me onhis way without even an apology. Profiling happens. Iknow
Had a few tonight?
BTW - pulling a vehicle over that is weaving all over the road is not "profiling" it is "probable cause".
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2007, 03:06:09 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 12, 2007, 03:02:24 AMI was tired frombeing inthe filed all week and was weaving in and out of the road. The Cop pulss me over and doesnt even give me the breath testuntil we get to jail and I am in a holding cell for 2 hours. Then he sends me onhis way without even an apology. Profiling happens. Iknow
Had a few tonight?
BTW - pulling a vehicle over that is weaving all over the road is not "profiling" it is "probable cause".
Well, the guy could've at least administered the breath test.
If someone is that tired, they don't need to be on the road anyway. My kids have already been to one funeral for a friend of their's who was killed when his sister fell asleep and I've responded to more than a couple of accidents where fatigue was a factor.
Quote from: Eclipse on October 12, 2007, 03:06:09 AM
Quote from: flyguy06 on October 12, 2007, 03:02:24 AMI was tired frombeing inthe filed all week and was weaving in and out of the road. The Cop pulss me over and doesnt even give me the breath testuntil we get to jail and I am in a holding cell for 2 hours. Then he sends me onhis way without even an apology. Profiling happens. Iknow
Had a few tonight?
BTW - pulling a vehicle over that is weaving all over the road is not "profiling" it is "probable cause".
Pulling a vehicle over is not profiling. Puttinghim injail before administering a breatherlizer is. I am on the badge side of the law now and I realize that
Unless your hooking them for drunk in public. But any cop should be able to tell the difference between tired and drunk.
Here's an interesting twist on this debate. The Florida Boot Camp Guards and Nurse were just acquitted of all charges in the death of the teenaged boy in the Florida boot camp. Therefore, they have no felony convictions on their records. If they showed up at your squadron tomorrow and you were commander, would you sign off on their membership?
In Florida if you are charged with a felony and aquitted, the arrest remain on your record. Thus it will show up on a criminal record check.
Quote from: BillB on October 12, 2007, 09:52:16 PM
In Florida if you are charged with a felony and aquitted, the arrest remain on your record. Thus it will show up on a criminal record check.
What does that mean, exactally? One is held accountable for an arrest even if found to be not guilty? Could this hold up a CAP member's application or readmittance?
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 13, 2007, 03:50:07 AM
Quote from: BillB on October 12, 2007, 09:52:16 PM
In Florida if you are charged with a felony and aquitted, the arrest remain on your record. Thus it will show up on a criminal record check.
What does that mean, exactally? One is held accountable for an arrest even if found to be not guilty? Could this hold up a CAP member's application or readmittance?
Yes. If you're charged, you're fingerprinted. This will show up when fingerprints are checked.. Attach a letter to the Senior Member application explaining what happened.
Quote from: Major Carrales on October 13, 2007, 03:50:07 AM
What does that mean, exactally? One is held accountable for an arrest even if found to be not guilty? Could this hold up a CAP member's application or readmittance?
Well, among other things it means that we have a strong public policy against "secret arrests."
If the authorities could arrest people without a very public record, horrible abuses are almost certain to occur.
As it is, it is no great shame to be arrested. Mistaken identifications are not all that uncommon, and sometimes citizen arrests (or even arrests by peace officers) are simply in error.
In most cases, an arrest on a rap sheet is accompanied by the disposition. It will often indicate, for example, that no charges were filed, or perhaps charges were dropped, or even an acquittal. (Of course if there is a conviction, the rap sheet will list the charges, any penalties, and current probation or parole status.)
Rarely, an arrest is listed without a disposition. If that occurs, I imagine CAP authorities with access to the information may ask a prospective member for an explanation. Seems reasonable enough.
Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer
What does that mean, exactally? One is held accountable for an arrest even if found to be not guilty? Could this hold up a CAP member's application or readmittance?
If you werent convicted, I imagine it could hold up an application depending on the circumstances. I had arrested a 26 year old male for having a 13 year old girl friend. Believe it or not, she was about 5'11" and looked like she stepped out of a Victoria Secret catalog, so the "she looked 18" argument could have worked, except for that silly detail about him picking her up at the local Elementary school everyday after class. Anyway, her dad got a job in Europe somewhere.....Poooof...she vanished into thin air. Mom and dad were kinda weird. The suspect actually admitted to everything during my interview. But the charges were dropped becase the victim was gone.
When you look at his CII print out all it says is:
PC288(a) Lewd Acts with a Child under 14
Dismissed in the Interests of Justice
Although he wasnt found "not guilty" by a jury, Thats probably a case where you should be held accountable.
Hence the reason for the waiver process and the background screening.
A potential member submits his app and fingerprints. National pings on the arrest and asks for more information. Then everyone in the chain of command can look at the situation and make a decision from there.
The bottom line. If you as a commander are not comfortable with an individual for any reason....criminal background, attitude, job performance, what ever....you can deny them entry into the program and 2b them once they are in.
But there is no bright line in the sand and there should not be. Just as there are times where someone is convicted of a felony and should still be let into CAP there are times when someone has not been convicted and should not be allowed with 100 yards of CAP.
YMMV.
Quote from: lordmonar on October 14, 2007, 06:45:59 PM
A potential member submits his app and fingerprints. National pings on the arrest and asks for more information. Then everyone in the chain of command can look at the situation and make a decision from there.
Patrick,
A slight correction.
No one in the chain sees criminal history information, with the single exception of the National Commander (or designee). That stuff is on very close hold in the Executive Director's office. Only the Executive Director or National Commander can grant a potential waiver. The rest of the chain will never know the contents of the criminal history provided by the FBI or if a waiver was granted, unless the applicant chooses to share the information.
*** Huge Bump ***
As I was searching for a thread totally un-related, this popped up on the search and I read with great interest. As a police officer, at one time I was part of a committee researching "look-back windows" (a time period that if something happened outside of the window, you not automatically DQd, but could be taken into consideration) regarding various issues for LE candidates. At the time I was a "no exceptions" person - if you admitted to using drugs, had a DWI, any misdemeanor or felony conviction - then you were scum of the Earth and need not even think about applying. However, as we got deeper into it, I began looking at other agencies across the country. One of the things I found was that many LE agencies have various levels. For example, a lot of agencies have a 1 year look-back window (LBW) for marijuana, 5 year LBW for DWI, 15 year look-back for certain Class I & II drugs, etc. Same thing goes for convictions – each level of misdemeanor & felony had certain look-back windows. I also began reading about people that had been stupid years ago, but had turned into productive members of society.
For example, an 18 yo kid got arrested for possessing drugs in the late '70s. He was convicted, put on probation, and joined the Army. He retired after 25 years, a decorated soldier with the rank of Master Sergeant and a high-level security clearance, married with one son at West Point, and in excellent physical shape. He applied to be an officer with the local sheriff's office, but they could not hire him because of the policy (no criminal convictions) they had in place at the time of his application. The sheriff's department later changed their policy to allow someone to not be automatically DQd for a prior felony conviction. He went through the application process after that and was, by all accounts, an outstanding deputy.
By the same accounts, I can think of several officers that didn't have a squawk one on their background that should not have been let anywhere near a badge & gun.
Would CAP want to deny him a position because of his prior felony? I can appreciate FlyingPig's outlook, I once had a similar one myself. But after 18 years in LE, and having looked around at other LE agencies, as well as life seasoning, I have a much different opinion now. I think Ned is right, we should have the opportunity to deny membership to convicted felons, but that it should not be automatic. The totality of circumstances should be taken into consideration (length of time, multiple offenses, etc) as well as recommendations. Every person is unique – just like the officers stated above, there are some people that I wouldn't want within a hundred yards of CAP even though they are squeaky clean.
With the two year bump, I am interested in what current thoughts are and if any of the previous posters have re-considered their positions.
I believe that the policy should be as it is now. Time and the nature of the crime should be taken into consideration. The applicant should be up front with his past and a strong letter of support from the Squadron Commander and the Membership Committee should accompany the application. Certain crimes should never be considered. (Child sex, selling drugs, and desertion from the armed forces). Letters of reference should also be provided from his employer, religious leader, or a local dignitary.
High Speed, I don't care if a person was 18 or 80, if they were convicted of a felony they are a felon. How is it that those who abide by our laws should have to compete with those that do not when seeking employment or benefits. You said the guy made a great officer. Great, who did he beat out to get the position??
We all make mistakes, and we all know what is right and wrong. Some choose to ignore the law, and behave in such a way that is against our laws. Ignorance of law is not an excuse when it comes to crimes like DWI, drug possession, rape and murder. We ALL as a society understand those things are wrong.
From what you described the person who made an excellent Soldier served an Army that at the time was desperate for recruits and lowered the standard. Today, that standard has been lowered and some Soldiers were gang bangers, drug dealers and car thieves. Honestly.....I don't like that policy.
Once convicted, unless a court somewhere expunges your record so that you name does not pull up a felony conviction....you are a FELON. Lets not lower standards because of hopes that a person may one day be a good citizen.
So for you tax evaders, pot smokers (almost legalized in CALI), child molesters and thieves, don't bother coming to my Squadron. I will not only blacklist you locally I will research and write up letters to CAP National Headquarters making them aware of you. They do keep a list, and I have no problem getting you added to that list and flagging your name!
Quote from: Spike on January 17, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
High Speed, I don't care if a person was 18 or 80, if they were convicted of a felony they are a felon. How is it that those who abide by our laws should have to compete with those that do not when seeking employment or benefits. You said the guy made a great officer. Great, who did he beat out to get the position??
So your position is that felons should be ineligible for jobs?
Hmm... I wonder what they would have to resort to...
Perhaps jobs of great public trust aren't for them.
Quote from: JoeTomasone on January 17, 2010, 10:33:40 PM
So your position is that felons should be ineligible for jobs?
Hmm... I wonder what they would have to resort to...
Welfare. We supported them in prison, and most wind up on state and federal aid eventually.
People do stupid things, it happens. Breaking a law once, early in life, should not be an automatic disqualifier. (Of course there are caveats, such as the nature and severity of the crime, blah blah blah.) Even the regular Air Force will waive certain criminal convictions by potential recruits under certain circumstances.
If it's been awhile (at least a few years, depending on what they did) then I would at least consider them if they could provide evidence of following a pattern of responsible behavior. If a convicted felon can get a security clearance years down the road, then they shouldn't automatically be blacklisted from joining CAP.
I work with a guy who has a conviction for "statutory sexual seduction". It resulted from a plea bargain down from statutory rape (the girl lied about her age to him). He is guilty of a sex crime and is a registered sex offender. This man should not be in CAP. I bring this up, however, because of what kind of man he is and how being a criminal relates to trust or responsibility. This man, 2 decades later is, in my opinion, a good man. He made a mistake many years ago, served his sentence, and is now a good member of society. I've known him for close to a decade now, and while he works two full time jobs he's never late and sick no more often then others. He's a good reliable employee. CAP is pretty specific that things of this nature are disqualifying for membership; parents trust the senior members with the most important thing in their lives, their children. CAP has a tremendous responsibility to protect them, and MUST be exceptionally vigilant.
Look at that story above and replace it with something much more benign, maybe tax fraud. The way the tax code is written it's difficult to determine without fail what deductions are legal, but you want the most refund you are eligible for. People DO make honest mistakes. Tax PROFESSIONALS make those same mistakes. Even the IRS itself has made mistakes. What if this person hadn't committed a sex crime, but an inadvertent tax crime? Would he have been a bad member?
CAP has specific disqualifying crimes, these are nondiscriminatory and should be unwaiveable. Other crimes, however, require at least some consideration. A prospective member needs to know that s/he needs to be forthcoming about any disqualifies, that they will be found, and it's best if all involved know about them and the potential consequences. The Commander and Membership Board should have a very frank discussion with the prospective member, and in turn that member should provide anything possible to explain the situation. They WANT to join CAP, let's give a willing person an honest consideration. Not all criminals are bad (not that I advocate lawbreaking), nor all law abiding citizens good. A tax fraud shouldn't handle money, and in my example given the fact that FARs are almost as bad as the tax code, not be a pilot for CAP. They may be very qualified for other positions however. Wouldn't it be great to have more teachers in CAP, even if they're an unintentional tax evader?
In Arkansas you can become a felon if you bounce a check for $250.00 to a grocery store and can't make it good within 10 days. Felony doesn't always mean dirtbag, it might mean that someone fell on hard times financially and their checkbook runs so tight that 1 bounced check starts a boulder rolling down a hill. This happens more than you think. Felon for feeding your kids, go figure..........
Quote from: Spike on January 17, 2010, 10:12:08 PM
High Speed, I don't care if a person was 18 or 80, if they were convicted of a felony they are a felon. How is it that those who abide by our laws should have to compete with those that do not when seeking employment or benefits. You said the guy made a great officer. Great, who did he beat out to get the position??
We all make mistakes, and we all know what is right and wrong. Some choose to ignore the law, and behave in such a way that is against our laws. Ignorance of law is not an excuse when it comes to crimes like DWI, drug possession, rape and murder. We ALL as a society understand those things are wrong.
From what you described the person who made an excellent Soldier served an Army that at the time was desperate for recruits and lowered the standard. Today, that standard has been lowered and some Soldiers were gang bangers, drug dealers and car thieves. Honestly.....I don't like that policy.
Once convicted, unless a court somewhere expunges your record so that you name does not pull up a felony conviction....you are a FELON. Lets not lower standards because of hopes that a person may one day be a good citizen.
So for you tax evaders, pot smokers (almost legalized in CALI), child molesters and thieves, don't bother coming to my Squadron. I will not only blacklist you locally I will research and write up letters to CAP National Headquarters making them aware of you. They do keep a list, and I have no problem getting you added to that list and flagging your name!
So, your opinion is that a person that messes up should forever pay for his mistakes? Sir, I really hope that you are able to make it through your life being perfect. I thank my God that He does not believe the same as you.
Everybody messes up. Were it not for the grace and mercy of others (and second chances), many of us would be in a lot worse place. I can see if a person has multiple violations, or even one of the serious ones (violent crime) being a poor candidate. But someone that commits one crime, (and
generally those that commit only one are not criminals, but folks that made a bad decision), then who are we to say they so not deserve a second chance? For the record, I'm not saying that everyone should be allowed in, but that the process that we have now of reviewing the person's actions and history is a good practice. As a side note, there are many more felonies now then there were 20 years ago (i.e. it is a lot eaier to mess up now than then).
Also think about this; Marting Luther King Jr, Gandhi, and Nelson Mandela (to name a few) were imprisoned for crimes. If we were to follow the bright line rule that Spike follows, none of them would be allowed in CAP, although a review of their actions would lead reasonable person to allow them in. I am not saying that the felons applying for memerbship are in the same catagoiry as these noble men, just that a review and decision is the right thing to do - not just adopt a "If you made a mistake, you can't be in rule."
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 01:44:01 AM
Felon for feeding your kids, go figure..........
No, a felon for stealing $250. In this country, stealing to feed your children is a poor excuse. As far as a sex offender being given a chance or not, it's a matter of trust versus risk. We as CAP members are many times put in positions of public trust. AAMOF, every time we put on the uniform, we become symbols of that trust. As flawed as things are, the (generally applicable) prohibition on felons in the force is a good policy.
I have personally had two members who were previous felons due to convictions while in military service. In both cases I made sure that:
- they were not involved with anything of a sexual nature or minors
- the felonies were in no way violent
I had vigorous interviews with them and had them bring in every shred of paperwork they had. I consulted with my legal officer and chaplain for their opinions as well as the membership committee. Before I submitted their names with my signature, I made sure that their lives had been exemplary since the crimes and that their motivations were for service and camaraderie. I also, IIRC, gave a full briefing to the group and wing CCs on the matter. (One conviction was for using meal card after he had been authorized separate rations - his sentence was 6 months IIRC; I don't recall the other crime, but it was of the same level and he had also drawn a 6 month sentence)
Their applications were submitted with considerable accompanying paperwork and both were accepted.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2010, 03:48:52 AM
I have personally had two members who were previous felons due to convictions while in military service. In both cases I made sure that:
- they were not involved with anything of a sexual nature or minors
- the felonies were in no way violent
I had vigorous interviews with them and had them bring in every shred of paperwork they had. I consulted with my legal officer and chaplain for their opinions as well as the membership committee. Before I submitted their names with my signature, I made sure that their lives had been exemplary since the crimes and that their motivations were for service and camaraderie. I also, IIRC, gave a full briefing to the group and wing CCs on the matter. (One conviction was for using meal card after he had been authorized separate rations - his sentence was 6 months IIRC; I don't recall the other crime, but it was of the same level and he had also drawn a 6 month sentence)
Their applications were submitted with considerable accompanying paperwork and both were accepted.
This seems like a logical process.
I agree there are some "accidental felons" out there. People who grabbed an abalone while scuba diving, or who plow their farm and are busted because some endangered rat MIGHT like to live there, or who find themselves on the wrong side of some obscure or unjust law that almost no one has ever heard of. For those reasons I think it's reasonable to review applicants with a record instead of rejecting them outright.
However, the bar must be set pretty high. We shouldn't give a pass to anything that isn't a violent crime. Anything that hints at a lack of integrity or that suggests violence or sexual deviance should be kept away at all costs. Those folks DO pay the price for life (we aren't talking about juvenile history here BTW). They can participate in life and should be expected to stay out of further trouble, but that doesn't mean giving them a position of trust.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 18, 2010, 03:48:52 AM
(One conviction was for using meal card after he had been authorized separate rations - his sentence was 6 months IIRC; I don't recall the other crime, but it was of the same level and he had also drawn a 6 month sentence)
Their applications were submitted with considerable accompanying paperwork and both were accepted.
A 6 month sentence does not rise to the level of a felony under Federal law, more than 1 year imprisonment is the benchmark. In some states this level is increased to 2 years or more (Massachusetts is 2 1/2 years for instance).
Unless your review was for the status of their discharge (which should have been a bad conduct discharge at the most from what you describe) it doesn't meet the level of an automatic disqualification. A bad conduct discharge is NOT the same as a dishonorable but does warrant an investigation.
I do agree with wuzafuzz - we should set the bar pretty high. Definately no sex crimes of any type. And no violent crimes. Drug crimes (possesion of controlled substance) need to be examined - for example: Possesion w/ intent should have occurred more than 20 years ago, a simple possesion charge - 10 years ago, possesion of drug paraphanalia (without simultaneous possesion of drugs) - 5 years ago. But the vast majority of felonies now are non violent / non-drug. A thorough examination should be conducted and each person should be evaluated on their own merits.
I guess that a lot of this has to do with my position as an officer. Unfortunately, there are a lot of people that get caught up in something that their friends are doing. I've had to charge many people with "technical" crimes. For example - driver's got weed, gets stopped by the police. He quickly throws the weed under the passenger side seat, where his friend is sitting. Car ends up being searched and the weed is found - and unless the driver confesses, the passenger gets charged because under case law, the passnger is in "constructive possesion" of the weed. Even if the officer "knows" that the driver is the one that had the weed (say two prior arrests for weed and more criminal record vs. the passenger is on the way home from work, no priors, and caught a ride with the driver). And this is just an example. ** This example is a synopsis only - if you want to discuss the valdity, PM me. I do not want to debate law on the board.**
I know that many arrests that I have made have been people that just made a bad decsion - I knew that from the get go. But, I still had to do my job. But CAP is not LE, we can make decisions about people, that want to help the community for whatever reason, to allow them to do so and be productive members of CAP as well.
You are incorrect. A court martial is a federal conviction. One may have the sentence suspended, but it's still a felony. I have a good friend and former teammate who just retired with a court martial conviction. He got 3 months hard time, reduction to E-1, and forfeiture of pay. He still doesn't have his civil rights back. In order to have them restored, he has to petition a federal judge. I have another friend who refused to take a urine test after the commander took his picture as a joke. $2500 (no jail time) and a federal conviction record.
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 05:54:07 PM
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Nope....All UCMJ courts martial are federal jurisdictions....and the federal government only has felony charges.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2010, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 05:54:07 PM
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Nope....All UCMJ courts martial are federal jurisdictions....and the federal government only has felony charges.
Thats funny, WIWOAD as an MP I processed many a DWI under the UCMJ. Not a felony and any soldier has the right request a court martial. I guess I don't know what I am talking about......
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2010, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 05:54:07 PM
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Nope....All UCMJ courts martial are federal jurisdictions....and the federal government only has felony charges.
I got a speeding ticket on Patrick AFB once (as a civilian), that had I contested it I would have had to go to a federal magistrate. Instead I just paid it... Does that make me a felon?
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 18, 2010, 06:38:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2010, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 05:54:07 PM
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Nope....All UCMJ courts martial are federal jurisdictions....and the federal government only has felony charges.
I got a speeding ticket on Patrick AFB once (as a civilian), that had I contested it I would have had to go to a federal magistrate. Instead I just paid it... Does that make me a felon?
Not at all. People replying above are confused with the concept that the Federal Government has jurisdiction over the Military (specifically Active Duty members). Federal Law trumps local and state laws, especially when there is a military station/post/base where thousands of service members live and work. Now, if a crime is committed off of federal property the US Government may decide to let the local authorities and courts handle it, but they always have the right to prosecute military first.
Speeding and traffic tickets are federal citations when handed out on federal property. You will go through the federal court system, UNLESS the military has an agreement with the local magistrate to handle these and forward the results to the Fed.
All of you service members here.....didn't you ever sit through a JAG briefing when you moved to a new duty station??
High Speed.. I just don't get what you are saying. Everyone does make "mistakes", I agree. I do not agree that just because a persons "mistake" was a felony they should have it forgotten and forgiven. We all know what is right and wrong, and MOST of us live a truthful and honest life. We don't rob banks, sell crack, steal cars or rape one another. We all have to live in the law. It may be easier to do the wrong thing, but you pay the consequences if you do. Why should I (a person who does what is right) have to think about those that "do wrong"??
So I get that you are OK with a person getting busted for possesion of crack, if only happened once and they have not done it since. However, we all could carry crack around with us, but we don't. We made the correct choices, those others did not, and they must suffer for it within the justice system. I don't agree with all laws, but I still make sure not to break them (illegal drugs being a major one). Again, everyone knows right from wrong, don't make excuses for their stupidity.
Quote from: necigrad on January 18, 2010, 01:30:56 AM
Look at that story above and replace it with something much more benign, maybe tax fraud. The way the tax code is written it's difficult to determine without fail what deductions are legal, but you want the most refund you are eligible for. People DO make honest mistakes. Tax PROFESSIONALS make those same mistakes. Even the IRS itself has made mistakes. What if this person hadn't committed a sex crime, but an inadvertent tax crime? Would he have been a bad member?
Seriously?
People who make "honest mistakes" don't get convicted of felony tax fraud. Honest mistakes are met with fines, back taxes, and interest payments.
People convicted of felony tax crimes are either gaming the system or outright committing fraud, in either case we don't need them in CAP.
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 18, 2010, 06:38:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2010, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 05:54:07 PM
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Nope....All UCMJ courts martial are federal jurisdictions....and the federal government only has felony charges.
I got a speeding ticket on Patrick AFB once (as a civilian), that had I contested it I would have had to go to a federal magistrate. Instead I just paid it... Does that make me a felon?
Speeding at a level in which light is still visible from your vehicle is rarely a felony offense.
Quote from: Eclipse on January 18, 2010, 07:47:45 PM
Quote from: Al Sayre on January 18, 2010, 06:38:09 PM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 18, 2010, 06:16:11 PM
Quote from: cap235629 on January 18, 2010, 05:54:07 PM
a service member can request court martial for ANY offense under the UCMJ. The underlying charge dictates whether or not it is a felony level offense, not just the court of jurisdiction.
Nope....All UCMJ courts martial are federal jurisdictions....and the federal government only has felony charges.
I got a speeding ticket on Patrick AFB once (as a civilian), that had I contested it I would have had to go to a federal magistrate. Instead I just paid it... Does that make me a felon?
Speeding at a level in which light is still visible from your vehicle is rarely a felony offense.
Those charges are adjudicated, as stated above, in the Federal court system, not in the military courts. It is not a felony trial - it's the same as being caught hunting on federal land. You can be heard in front of a Federal magistrate or, if you desire a jury trial, you can be tried in Federal District Court.
While military courts are federal in nature, they are not the same, however they are of the same sovereign. If you are convicted in a military court, you cannot be tried for the same crime in the federal system. The state in which the crime occurs, however, can claim jurisdiction and a person can be tried by the state most always without regard to constitutional double jeopardy - two different sovereigns: state and federal.
Were they shooting at you? Thats a sure give away.
Nope, 34 in a 30...
Under Title 18 of the USC any crime where the possible sentence is over a year is classified as a felony.
Under the UCMJ if the court martial could possible impose a sentence over a year then that conviction is a felony even if the actual sentence was less then a year.
So convictions by Summary Courts Martial are NOT felonies....but all others are.....and of course Article 15 actions are not convictions of any kind.
Summary courts are rarely used. It is for enlisted members only. The defendant is tried by one commissioned officer, is not represented by an attorney, and if above E-4, cannot be confined for more than one month or hard labor to 45 days or restriction or two months, forfeiture of 2/3 of a month's pay. E-1 to E-4 can get not more than one month's confinement and reduction to E-1. (had to look it up). Since the accused can't be represented, I've only seen one poor soul who was dumb enough to ask for it. He got restriction and some lost pay.
Special court martial is tried by a judge and three members and may try officers and enlisted. This is the misdemeanor court for the military. Defendants may be represented. It can impose sentences of more than one year, short of death. Can also impose forfeiture of pay for more than one year.
General court martial is the "felony court." It can impose up to death if allowed by law.
Gunner.
Both the general and special courts are felony courts. ANY conviction that can result in punishment of over a year are classed as felonies....even if they hand down a lesser sentance.
^really?
Guess I need that refresher on military justice. I never heard of it being described that way, nor seen it written that way. I may be wrong, if so, please direct me to the documentation (if you want).
Let me help (your Google must be down).
http://www.wisegeek.com/whats-the-difference-between-a-misdemeanor-and-a-felony.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Felony
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/felony
Quote from: Spike on January 19, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
^really?
Guess I need that refresher on military justice. I never heard of it being described that way, nor seen it written that way. I may be wrong, if so, please direct me to the documentation (if you want).
Title 18...classification of offenses.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=felony&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003559----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=felony&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003559----000-.html)
UCMJ
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm)
Art 20 limits the sentences of Summery Courts Martial so they are all considered misdemeanors as per Title 18...all other courts can punish "as a court-martial may direct" which would make them all felony convictions.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2010, 12:02:56 AM
Quote from: Spike on January 19, 2010, 08:47:18 PM
^really?
Guess I need that refresher on military justice. I never heard of it being described that way, nor seen it written that way. I may be wrong, if so, please direct me to the documentation (if you want).
Title 18...classification of offenses.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=felony&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003559----000-.html (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=felony&url=/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00003559----000-.html)
UCMJ
http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm (http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/ucmj.htm)
Art 20 limits the sentences of Summery Courts Martial so they are all considered misdemeanors as per Title 18...all other courts can punish "as a court-martial may direct" which would make them all felony convictions.
A search for the word "felony" doesn't bring anything up on my end in the UCMJ. Article 18 relates to civilians and civilian courts. A search for "military", or "UCMJ" brings up nothing.
The two are separate and not relative to each other.
You can lead a horse to water....
Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2010, 01:13:55 AM
You can lead a horse to water....
But if your horse is smarter....
I have a 55 year old retired cop (of 25 years) who works for me. Prior to that he was an Army MP for 5 years. Today, he is a security supervisor.
Just yesterday he was telling me about a friend that he worked with before he had joined the Army. The two of them worked at a Kmart store here at the beach. As young 18 or 19 year olds, they were foolish and stole several things from the store. The manager found out and called them in. His friend went in and was arrested for grand theft, a felony. His life was ruined.
My co-worker knew what was going on and didn't go in. For some reason nothing happened. They never came knocking on his door and to this day he is thankful. As I mentioned above, he went into the Army and later became a cop.
Just because people don't have a criminal record doesn't mean they're not guilty of something. And just because someone does have a criminal record of sorts, does not mean they're satan's child. Not everything is all or nothing; in my opinion anyway. There's an 19 year old kid within one mile of my house who is a registered sex offender. He was 18 and hooked up with a 16 year old. How many people have done this that are in CAP? Yet he got caught or the girl's parents filed charges or whatever. I knew guys in the Army who were dating high schoolers. Good thing they didn't tick off the wrong parents I guess.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2010, 07:08:43 PM
Gunner.
Both the general and special courts are felony courts. ANY conviction that can result in punishment of over a year are classed as felonies....even if they hand down a lesser sentance.
Special court-martials do have a maximum penalty length of 1 year, or so I've been told.
Quote from: raivo on January 20, 2010, 08:35:48 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 19, 2010, 07:08:43 PM
Gunner.
Both the general and special courts are felony courts. ANY conviction that can result in punishment of over a year are classed as felonies....even if they hand down a lesser sentance.
Special court-martials do have a maximum penalty length of 1 year, or so I've been told.
The worst explanations you can give is "Someone told me" or "I heard ..."
Okay spike.
I did a little more reading and you are correct. Special and Summary Courts Martial are misdemeanor convictions (Summary are limited to 45 days and Special are limited to 6 month sentences).
But any General Court Martial is automatically a felony convictions even if they hand down a 45 day sentence because they are not limited in what they could possible hand down.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 20, 2010, 06:32:05 PM
Okay spike.
I did a little more reading and you are correct. Special and Summary Courts Martial are misdemeanor convictions (Summary are limited to 45 days and Special are limited to 6 month sentences).
But any General Court Martial is automatically a felony convictions even if they hand down a 45 day sentence because they are not limited in what they could possible hand down.
I agree! I did some reading this morning because this discussion got me thinking. I has been skooled!
Now back to Felony Convictions.....if you got one, you are a Felon. That title is yours for the rest of your life. Congratulations for getting caught breaking laws that most of us do not! If you have not been caught yet, I urge you to stop being stupid, try to be a good citizen and teach your kids the same.
So, my advice is; live your lives honestly and teach the next generation the same. There is no such thing as an "accident", just stupidity and ignorance. Think before you act, and be respectful to those around you. We all make decisions, some just make decisions that are wrong, and must suffer consequences for them.
After browsing through the Manual for Courts-Martial, I found this tidbit in the UCMJ regarding those who fall under its jurisdiction:
4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed
forces who are entitled to pay.
:o
Oh crap. I better straighten up and fly right.
Quote from: Cecil DP on January 20, 2010, 03:47:06 PMThe worst explanations you can give is "Someone told me" or "I heard ..."
Yes, I'm not sure why I said that. ??? That was according to my UCMJ lesson from OTS:
"Maximum punishment:
Upon enlisted members: bad conduct discharge, confinement for 1 year, hard labor without confinement for 3 months, restriction for 2 months, forfeiture of 2/3 pay per month for 1 year, reduction to AB, reprimand and a fine.
Upon officers: Forfeiture of 2/3 pay per month for 1 year, restriction for 2 months, reprimand and a fine."
Depends on the level of the court.
BTW, in most commands, the 1st general officer in the chain of command reserves the right to administer UCMJ to his officers. IOW, if you screw up as an officer, you're gonna get blistered!
Quote from: MSgt Van on January 20, 2010, 10:47:16 PM
After browsing through the Manual for Courts-Martial, I found this tidbit in the UCMJ regarding those who fall under its jurisdiction:
4) Retired members of a regular component of the armed
forces who are entitled to pay.
:o
Oh crap. I better straighten up and fly right.
Yep, if you rob the finance office on the way to the commissary, they'll recall you to AD, try you, convict you, reduce you to E-1, give you a dishonorable discharge, and throw you in the slammer for a good long stretch.
Quote from: Gunner C on January 21, 2010, 12:02:40 AM
Depends on the level of the court.
BTW, in most commands, the 1st general officer in the chain of command reserves the right to administer UCMJ to his officers. IOW, if you screw up as an officer, you're gonna get blistered!
Blistered for an OP is being told to resign because the OPR he'll get means he'll never get promoted or a meaningful assignment again. Not like an EM who will actually lose Money and time out of his life. An Officer usually only does hard time for espionage or murder. Otherwise he's discharged.
Not true. I personally know of five and can sorta remember a sixth. They did hard time for a number of things. But truly, they all deserved it. As I was leaving AD, the "resignation for the good of the service" was becoming a thing of the past. Good generals were beginning to realize that officers needed to be responsible and answer for their actions. Some of these guys got worse than an EM would have. It sent quite a message.
One difference to note between EM and Officers when it comes to this sort of thing.....an EM who gets an Art 15 can survive it and continue on in the service. An O who gets and Art 15 is more times then not, done. The EM may have gotten busted a rank and lost money...but he can survive. The O may only get a letter of reprimand....but that goes into his promotion file and he will (almost) never get promoted again.
On the surface it may seem like the EM is getting hosed and the O getting let off with a slap on the wrist....but in the long run it is not usually the case.
The same also applies between a junior EM and a senior NCO. The SrA with a DUI gets a stripe and money taken from him...the SNCO may only get some money taken...but the SNCO's career is done--thanks for playing.
^ That was absolutely how it used to be. With the need for Officers, LOR's (if received between 0-1 and 0-3) almost never hurt the career. However LOR's for the Major is a different matter as there are enough Majors, Lt Colonels and Colonels in the Army, AF, Marines. I would guesstimate the same for the Navy as well.
When I wrote LOR's for 2LT's it was considered a possible career ender and most likely would get them passed over for promotion to 1LT. If passed over a second time it was out the door for the guy or girl.
Now, I know of Officer Courses in TRADOC that had cheaters, thieves and liars, where the officers got LOR's, but had them removed when leaving TRADOC for their first Post. It was considered a "LT's mistake" and equivalent to a slap on the wrist.