Convicted felons

[Ned]

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.

[Johnny Yuma]

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.

[mikeylikey]

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??

[PHall]

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.

[floridacyclist]

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.

[Major Carrales]

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.

[mikeylikey]

^  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! 

[Ned]

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.)

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?

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

[Major Carrales]

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.

[Skyray]

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.

[Ned]

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.)

[Major Carrales]

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.

[floridacyclist]

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?

[floridacyclist]

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.

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.

[mikeylikey]

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 $$$$$$$.

[DHollywood]

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.

[jimmydeanno]

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.

[Flying Pig]

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?

[floridacyclist]

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.

[flyboy]

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.