Felons Supervising Minors: Is It Legal?

[Eagle400]

You guys aint gonna believe this, but...

We had a nitwit who tried to get into CAP but was rejected because of several felony convictions.

He is a "Colonel" in the Ranger Corps, and has teenagers over to his house almost every weekend for "Training."

It never ends.

Captain "Moderanger" locked the Empire Stikes Back thread, so I have to post this over here. 

Allowing a felon to supervise and be in a position of authority over minors has got to be illegal.  Can anything be done about this?  In my eyes, this goes beyond creating an appearance of impropriety, and crosses the boundary of legality. 

Flying Pig, JohnKachenmeister, and others with police experience, please help me out.

[mikeylikey]

You guys ain't gonna believe this, but...

We had a nitwit who tried to get into CAP but was rejected because of several felony convictions.

He is a "Colonel" in the Ranger Corps, and has teenagers over to his house almost every weekend for "Training."

It never ends.

Captain "Moderanger" locked the Empire Stikes Back thread, so I have to post this over here. 

Allowing a felon to supervise and be in a position of authority over minors has got to be illegal.  Can anything be done about this?  In my eyes, this goes beyond creating an appearance of impropriety, and crosses the boundary of legality. 

Flying Pig, JohnKachenmeister, and others with police experience, please help me out.

Actually a lawyer would be more able to help out.  Specifically one from your own State.

Remember some Felonies in our legal system vary by state.  A felony for passing 3 bad checks in Tennessee is only a minor misdemeanor in Pennsylvania. 

Felons are not all rapists, murderers, child molesters or deviants.  PLUS don't forget Felony convictions may or may not carry prison time, it may only be a fine.  (reference the Stolen Valor Act).

Then you get into the situation where a child is charged with felony theft when they are twelve, but now that they are 40, and a parent and conscious minded good citizen, is it really relevant. 

That is why CAP NHQ will look at all felons before stamping an "automatic" membership denied stamp on the application.

Heck.....they let felons in the military, and I even once had a 2LT who had a felony DUI conviction, but was waivered. 

People make mistakes in their lives, to be blackballed because of it until they die is not the reason we have a justice system.

(Mikey was pre-law at Penn State for 3 years before he decided business would be a better major, PLUS I loved the TV series JAG, and wanted to be an AF or ARMY JAG......but then I work-shadowed some of them while in ROTC, and decided, I would rather not shuffle papers my entire career).  I do have a minor in Business Law though.     

[CadetProgramGuy]

You guys aint gonna believe this, but...

We had a nitwit who tried to get into CAP but was rejected because of several felony convictions.

He is a "Colonel" in the Ranger Corps, and has teenagers over to his house almost every weekend for "Training."

It never ends.

Captain "Moderanger" locked the Empire Stikes Back thread, so I have to post this over here. 

Allowing a felon to supervise and be in a position of authority over minors has got to be illegal.  Can anything be done about this?  In my eyes, this goes beyond creating an appearance of impropriety, and crosses the boundary of legality. 

Flying Pig, JohnKachenmeister, and others with police experience, please help me out.

I guess my first question would be what was the felony?  From there we can better decide.

[Eagle400]

You make some excellent points, Mikey.

However, to allow someone charged with several felony convictions to join an organization where they are able to supervise minors and be in a position of authority over minors does not seem right.

[mikeylikey]

^ Its all relative to what the person actually did.  Rape, murder, molestation......ya, not a supper candidate for CAP.  Passing 12 bad checks to keep the lights on for the family 25 years ago when you lost your job and getting a felony conviction that carried a fine, might be a candidate.

PLUS.....just because someone has not been convicted of grievous acts, does not mean they are not a bad guy.  CAP needs a better investigations system into backgrounds.  I would support the AF running everyone through the Secret Security clearance program.  Last estimate to run a person through SF86 was $145.00.  Then we can start getting our Officers cleared for more sensitive missions at the same time as well. 

Heck I think that American Cadet Army Cadet Alliance thing program does a better background check on prospective members.   

[Pylon]

It also depends whether or not they later receive a "Dispensation from Civil Liabilities" after their conviction.  Makes a big difference.

And +1 for what mikey said.  It's all relative.

[JoeTomasone]

Plus if he passed those theoretical 12 bad checks in bunches of 3 on 4 separate occasions, that might be a felony each time - making "several" felonies.  Who knows??

[Eagle400]

That's weird, less than a minute ago my last two posts said "blah blah blah."

I think someone has hacked into my account.  Mods?  

[Pylon]

That's weird, less than a minute ago my last two posts said "blah blah blah."

I think someone has hacked into my account.  Mods?   

What?  I don't see it.

[Eagle400]

That's weird, less than a minute ago my last two posts said "blah blah blah."

I think someone has hacked into my account.  Mods?   

What?  I don't see it.

I swear, it was there a minute ago.

Weird.

[Pylon]

That's weird, less than a minute ago my last two posts said "blah blah blah."

I think someone has hacked into my account.  Mods?   

What?  I don't see it.

I swear, it was there a minute ago.

Weird.

Taken to PM.  Sorry for the thread sidetrack.

[Eagle400]

Taken to PM.  Sorry for the thread sidetrack.

No worries.

PM received and reply sent.

[CadetProgramGuy]

That's weird, less than a minute ago my last two posts said "blah blah blah."

I think someone has hacked into my account.  Mods?   

What?  I don't see it.

I swear, it was there a minute ago.

Weird.

I see it, tried to quote it

[Eagle400]

I see it, tried to quote it.

Did you happen to grab a screenshot of it by any chance?

[DNall]

I can see waivering a person in with a past felony in that bad check kind of category, but multiple felonies is a problem, not so much for supervision of kids, but in terms of complying with rules. It indicates that when things get tight this person has a history of intentionally putting aside the rules to do what benefits them. That wouldn't be acceptable in the military, and they got the UCMJ to do something about it if the guy misbehaves, CAP doesn't have any recourse.

Far as SF86, which is EPSQ now, for $145 per... that's not something we can do on the front end just base on costs. We do a national agency check now, I'd add the local check to be done locally & attached to the application. Put new members on probationary status for a period. Then lets look at getting clearances on people after a couple years, or in conjunction with aircrew & certain other positions (comm, IC, GBD/AOBD/OSC/PSC, etc). We should be able to get some funding to keep that cost down too. Secret just has to be redone what every 10 years? And honestly there's not a whole lot more to it then the above plus a credit check.

[CadetProgramGuy]

I see it, tried to quote it.

Did you happen to grab a screenshot of it by any chance?

Sorry, but no

[RRLE]

I would support the AF running everyone through the Secret Security clearance program.  Last estimate to run a person through SF86 was $145.00.

The Coast Guard Auxiliary did that and lost 1/3 of its membership over the 3 years it took to process the whole membership of 37,000. All new Auxie applicants must go thru the same check and it takes months. Many applicants don't wait out the process and 'leave' before their applicantion is ever processed.

Be careful what you wish for, you just might get it.

[cnitas]

So was the CGAux happy about the membership loss (read: Were these losses worth keeping?)

[NIN]

So was the CGAux happy about the membership loss (read: Were these losses worth keeping?)

hey, some people won't wait until September to join my unit.  Oh well.  Depends on how motivated you are and how the bar is set.

If they tell you "Yeah, you can join *right now* and be skimming across the waves looking for boaters with expired EPIRBS *tomorrow*!" and then *poof* you're told "Oh, but you gotta wait 45 days for your background check to complete.." that's a little disingenuous and it would be understandable for someone to get PO'd and say "forget it."

If, however, you're told up front "Hey, here's the process and heres how it goes and its going to take 45 days or more from the moment you put your paperwork in just to clear your background check," at least that's a known quantity and you know it beforehand.

[O-Rex]

Back to topic:

As for the individual with teenagers in his house for "training:"  If he's not in CAP, and is not conducting illegal activities, it's a moot point, unless the individual was convicted of some kind of molestation charge. . .

As for the US Ranger Corps, I see it as TP's realization that resurrecting his CAP career is a not going to happen, so he's starting his own org.

It is an extremely amitious undertaking to spool up something like CAP, particularly without a Govt sponsor.

Don't see it as a threat to CAP. 

TP is no longer in the organization: let's leave him to pursue his own endeavors as we pursue ours, because we have alot for us to do to get our own house in order.

[mikeylikey]

Back to topic:

As for the individual with teenagers in his house for "training:"  If he's not in CAP, and is not conducting illegal activities, it's a moot point, unless the individual was convicted of some kind of molestation charge. . .

As for the US Ranger Corps, I see it as TP's realization that resurrecting his CAP career is a not going to happen, so he's starting his own org.

It is an extremely ambitious undertaking to spool up something like CAP, particularly without a Govt sponsor.

Don't see it as a threat to CAP. 

TP is no longer in the organization: let's leave him to pursue his own endeavors as we pursue ours, because we have a lot for us to do to get our own house in order.

I don't think we need to be all concerned with felons joining CAP.  Most will walk run away when told they have to do an FBI fingerprint check. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I sort of agree with O-Rex, but TP's choice of "Colonels" seems to leave a lot to be desired.  (But such was the case when he was in CAP, too!  )

The only heartburn I have with it is that people MAY make a connection between our former National Commander and the pseudo-Rangers.

As to the original question, there is no law forbidding a convicted felon from organizing and participating with a youth organization, unless his offenses involved child molesting. The fact that the youth organization permits such members SHOULD be disclosed to parents, but I don't know of any law which requires it.

[mikeylikey]

^ Anyone can search on the internet in all states for sex offenders.  I did my town, and found 34 people within 5 miles of me.   

[Duke Dillio]

Martha Stewart was convicted of multiple felonies IIRC...

Granted, we don't want Charles Manson being the squadron leadership officer but just because a person happens to be a felon doesn't mean that they are a bad person.  Anybody heard the story of "Tookie?"  Up til near the end, he was writing children's books and anti-gang books.

Perhaps we don't want one of the Enron guys being our finance officer, Winonna Ryder as the Supply Officer, or OJ Simpson as the acting Moral Leadership officer.  There are plenty of people out there who have served their time and given back to the community.  There was a story of a lady caught in San Diego the other day who escaped from jail like 30 years ago and she turned up down there with a family and was a great citizen in the community, and her original charges were for drug distribution...

[JoeTomasone]

^ Anyone can search on the internet in all states for sex offenders.  I did my town, and found 34 people within 5 miles of me.   

Here in Tampa, we hire them as teachers, it seems...  <groan>

(and no, not ALL teachers...)

[Duke Dillio]

^ Anyone can search on the internet in all states for sex offenders.  I did my town, and found 34 people within 5 miles of me.   

Did you mark their addresses down to perform some "black ops" on them later to "convince" them that they need to move away?

And, that's only if the offenders register like they are supposed to......

My last point would be that there are people in my area that were charged with that stuff.  If you go and look at some of the arrests though, they might have been 20 years old and dating a 17 year old who got miffed on the breakup and charged statuatory rape.  Those laws are simply horrifying if you read into them.  I remember a case where a 19 year old was charged by a girl's parents and the girl was 17 about to turn 18.  All I'm sayin is that you gotta start carding these younger women.....

[Flying Pig]

Back to topic:

As for the individual with teenagers in his house for "training:"  If he's not in CAP, and is not conducting illegal activities, it's a moot point, unless the individual was convicted of some kind of molestation charge. . .

As for the US Ranger Corps, I see it as TP's realization that resurrecting his CAP career is a not going to happen, so he's starting his own org.

It is an extremely amitious undertaking to spool up something like CAP, particularly without a Govt sponsor.

Don't see it as a threat to CAP. 

TP is no longer in the organization: let's leave him to pursue his own endeavors as we pursue ours, because we have alot for us to do to get our own house in order.

Even that, if a molester is no longer on probation or parole, there is nothing "illegal" about them being around kids. 

As far as the scenario where the 18 year old gets arrested for stuff with is 17 year old girldfriend, few and far between, but still illegal.  As far as those laws being "horrifying"?  Could you cite one of those horrifyingly written laws?

This silly US Ranger Corps, hopefully, parents will do their homework.

[mikeylikey]

Even that, if a molester is no longer on probation or parole, there is nothing "illegal" about them being around kids. 

In PA, those people can never be teachers, and in fact are forbidden to work with children in general.  We have a State Government that cares for the welfare of its children. 

I know that may not be the case in every State, but I would sure hate to be the guy to tell little Suzie's' parents she was assaulted by a guy who has done it three times to three other children prior. 

[Johnny Yuma]

In my book: A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon.

What I find incredibly interesting is that a former CAP commander and retired LEO is allowing convicted felons into his new organization and allowing them to work directly with youth. Seems to speak volumes.

[Eagle400]

What I find incredibly interesting is that a former CAP commander and retired LEO is allowing convicted felons into his new organization and allowing them to work directly with youth. Seems to speak volumes.

Well that is what happens with renegade militias.  Because they have no one to answer to, their leaders do as they please.  And because TP is a power-hungry sycophant, he will continue to do as he pleases until he is backed into a corner for which there is no escape.

Perhaps this example of extreme arrogance and autocratic style of leadership should become part of the Moral Leadership curricula...   

[Frenchie]

In my book: A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon.

What I find incredibly interesting is that a former CAP commander and retired LEO is allowing convicted felons into his new organization and allowing them to work directly with youth. Seems to speak volumes.

By far, most felonies that are committed are never solved.  It stands to reason that there's far more people out there who have committed felonies and never gotten caught than there are those who have been caught and convicted.  There's lots of people out there who AREN'T convicted felons that have no business supervising kids.  There's lots of non-felons out there who are alcoholics, womanizers, or other people of poor character who have no business being around kids.  On the other hand, there are lots of convicted felons that would be perfectly acceptable.  To pass judgment in this situation without knowing both sides of the story is simplistic.  All things being equal it may be easy to exclude all felons, but rarely are all things equal. 

Sometimes the alternative is worse.  Consider an inner city environment where there may not be enough "ideal" candidates to choose from.  Is it better to consider other screening options, or is it better to just allow the kids to do without and let them find their own ways to occupy their time?

[JohnKachenmeister]

In my book: A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon.

What I find incredibly interesting is that a former CAP commander and retired LEO is allowing convicted felons into his new organization and allowing them to work directly with youth. Seems to speak volumes.

I don't know, Johnny.  "Performing Services as an Unlicensed Contractor" is a felony in most states, but I don't keep a loaded gun handy to prevent one from coming into my house to remodel my bathrrom.

[lordmonar]

What I think is intresting is that anyone is intrested what these yahoos are doing.

So TP wants to be hard core Ranger and his felon freind is with him.

Move along folks....nothing to see here except  a couple of clowns in a little car!  It's funny....but we've all seen it before.

[flyerthom]

Lets look at this from a pragmatic view:

1) It's his time, his treasure and his deal, not ours.
2) It's his liability not ours.
3) We have enough on our plate to worry about. He is no longer a member and there fore not our concern.
4) Now is the time to look forward and build the organization from here. It's done lets move on.

[mikeylikey]

Lets look at this from a pragmatic view:

1) It's his time, his treasure and his deal, not ours.
2) It's his liability not ours.
3) We have enough on our plate to worry about. He is no longer a member and there fore not our concern.
4) Now is the time to look forward and build the organization from here. It's done lets move on.

Well said!

[Johnny Yuma]

In my book: A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon.

What I find incredibly interesting is that a former CAP commander and retired LEO is allowing convicted felons into his new organization and allowing them to work directly with youth. Seems to speak volumes.

By far, most felonies that are committed are never solved.  It stands to reason that there's far more people out there who have committed felonies and never gotten caught than there are those who have been caught and convicted.  There's lots of people out there who AREN'T convicted felons that have no business supervising kids.  There's lots of non-felons out there who are alcoholics, womanizers, or other people of poor character who have no business being around kids.  On the other hand, there are lots of convicted felons that would be perfectly acceptable.  To pass judgment in this situation without knowing both sides of the story is simplistic.  All things being equal it may be easy to exclude all felons, but rarely are all things equal. 

Sometimes the alternative is worse.  Consider an inner city environment where there may not be enough "ideal" candidates to choose from.  Is it better to consider other screening options, or is it better to just allow the kids to do without and let them find their own ways to occupy their time?

In my book: A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon.

What I find incredibly interesting is that a former CAP commander and retired LEO is allowing convicted felons into his new organization and allowing them to work directly with youth. Seems to speak volumes.

I don't know, Johnny.  "Performing Services as an Unlicensed Contractor" is a felony in most states, but I don't keep a loaded gun handy to prevent one from coming into my house to remodel my bathrrom.

I understand what you guys are saying, but my position's firm.

I've yet to see someone convicted of a felony offense didn't know what they were doing was wrong, or that the crime they were committing was indeed a felony. They knew the rules, took their chances and lost.

Many did, however, believe that the offense they were committing wasn't that big of a deal. Well, apparently someone thought enough of it to make it a felony.

I also know of no one who is ignorant of the fact that being labeled a felon has far reaching implications after their pennance to the State has been paid. Felons for decades have suffered Civil Death upon conviction and loss of RKBA since 1968, yet these are not strong enough reasons for them to avoid criminal activity.

There are even a few folks out there who believe that violent felons should be treated differently than white collar criminals, or those with property crimes felonies on their record. After reading Jeffrey Snyder's "A Nation of Cowards" I fell much as he does: property crimes are just as much a crime upon a person as a rape or assault is.

All this, coupled with the recidivism rate of felons in the criminal justice system, leads me to conclude what I posted earlier: A felon is a felon is a felon is a felon.

[Hoser]

So Johnny Yuma doesn't believe in redemption?

[mikeylikey]

So Johnny Yuma doesn't believe in redemption?

Nor does he believe our Justice System can make mistakes apparently.  It is real easy for someone to accuse another person of a crime, and then it goes to court with the "my word against your word" defense.  And Police and prosecutors like to make it look like they are doing something for their pay, so they usually try to convict innocent or not.  That is how our justice system works. 

[Flying Pig]

CAP isn't a redemption program, its an Honors Program.  As far as our justice system making mistakes?  How exactly do we as CAP filter out the mistaken convictions from the valid ones?  If you have been wrongly convicted I think you have bigger issues going on in your life outside of trying to join CAP.

[mikeylikey]

^ Your right. 

I still think when a person with a questionable background finds out we do background checks, they will mysteriously disappear.  I think this whole thing is a null point. 

[PHall]

^ Your right. 

I still think when a person with a questionable background finds out we do background checks, they will mysteriously disappear.  I think this whole thing is a null point. 

You would be amazed. There are some folks out there who are either bold enough or dumb enough to think that the fingerprint check won't find anything.
In the past 5 years, we've had at least 4 people trying to join my squadron come back with "hits" on their fingerprint checks.
And we're not talking about minor stuff either. We're talking felonies, mostly drug related.

[JoeTomasone]

My understanding was that if an applicant was convicted of a felony that did not involve pedophilia and the circumstances were such that it posed no relevance to CAP (either due to age committed, length of time "clean" since, or the nature of the offense -- or a combination of these) and the applicant was forthright in disclosing the matter at the time that they applied that they would still be permitted to join pending a review of the facts.    If the offenses were not disclosed it supposedly was grounds for immediate disreview and membership denial.   

[PHall]

That's what they did. They said they had not been arrested or convicted of a felony on the application.
Of course when the fingerprint check came back as a hit the game was over.

[CadetProgramGuy]

So Johnny Yuma doesn't believe in redemption?

OK fellas,

I know Johnny Yuma personally, and I know the people he hangs with, he does believe in redemption.  He is a good person....Really......

What I think he is trying to say is this......

If you ask someone if they are a felon, they answer yes.  Immediately  speaking does it matter what for?

After talking to the person, you can then decipher what they 'were accused of' then you can make your arguements.

True, Charles Manson is a Felon, so is Martha Stewart.  They are both Felons bottom line.  (yeah I know there is a little bit of difference between them.....)

[PHall]

So Johnny Yuma doesn't believe in redemption?

OK fellas,

I know Johnny Yuma personally, and I know the people he hangs with, he does believe in redemption.  He is a good person....Really......

What I think he is trying to say is this......

If you ask someone if they are a felon, they answer yes.  Immediately  speaking does it matter what for?

After talking to the person, you can then decipher what they 'were accused of' then you can make your arguements.

True, Charles Manson is a Felon, so is Martha Stewart.  They are both Felons bottom line.  (yeah I know there is a little bit of difference between them.....)

And neither Charlie Manson or Martha Stewart can join CAP because they are convicted felons.
And there seems to be no provision in the regs for felons who have had their civil rights restored either.
Yes, the Commander can ask for a waivier, on a case by case basis.
But, how many Commanders want to have to explain to Cadet Timmy's parents why a convicted felon is supervising their kid.

[lordmonar]

PHall,

Are you sure about that?

I know of a couple of convicted felons who are members of CAP.

The former AZWG CC was convicted felon IIRC, there is someone I know locally who spent some time in the pen for tax evasion.

My point being....39-2 does not say that being a convicted felon is an automatic bar to membership.

[PHall]

Like I said, the Unit Commander of the unit that the person is joining can request a waiver from National Headquarters.

Depending on the offense (violent/nonviolent) and the time since the offense, National may grant the waiver.

[mikeylikey]

But, how many Commanders want to have to explain to Cadet Timmy's parents why a convicted felon is supervising their kid.

Why would we have too?  That means I have to tell all the parents the backgrounds of every Officer in the SQD.  If I don't I would set myself up to being sued.

Once again a felony is violent or non violent and could have been a mistake the person made as a kid 40 years ago.   

[PHall]

But, how many Commanders want to have to explain to Cadet Timmy's parents why a convicted felon is supervising their kid.

Why would we have too?  That means I have to tell all the parents the backgrounds of every Officer in the SQD.  If I don't I would set myself up to being sued.

Once again a felony is violent or non violent and could have been a mistake the person made as a kid 40 years ago.   

Parents seem to find out about this stuff. Don't ask me how, they just do.

[Flying Pig]

A mistaken violent felony?   I can give it to you that in life people have serious lapses of judgement and that they can sit back and say "Wheeew, that was stupid."  But I have yet to see an accidental violent felony.  In CA we call that a "strike."  (Before that goes off into another thread..trust me it takes a lot more than 3 to get life despite what the media tells you)

As far as getting sued?  Criminal records are public knowledge.  I think you could stand a better chance of being sued by the parent who wasn't made aware that "Timmy's" Deputy Commander for Cadets had a conviction for a violent felony in his past.  Parents always seem to find out because we all tend to come from the same community in our Sq.'s.  Someone always knows the secret.
I am going through this right now in my Sq. with a local County Supervisor wanting to direct kids to CAP as they are released from the local Juvenile Correctional Boot Camp as a condition of their probation.  Sorry, My unit does not have the time, or resources nor the interest to dedicate to that type of undertaking.  Her idea was to have two separate the Cadet units. Basically, one for the good kids and one for the bad kids.  Im not kidding! (Its election year and she's looking for a cause.)

About 10 years ago, when I was Deputy Commander for Sq. 59 in Hemet, CA. we had a man inquire about membership.  Great guy.  Was in his 50's and taught kids how to box at the local youth center.  He thought about CAP.  Problem is, when he was about 18, he did a few years for participating in a violent gang related crime, Assault with a Deadly Weapon. The guy is a completely different person now, and very active in trying to get kids to go a different path.  He met the prime example of a guy who was stupid and left that life behind him many years ago.

I talked with him, and he decided not to pursue CAP.  I explained to him the background check, etc.  He wasn't afraid of it, because he had told me what CAP would find.  And selfish or not, I have talked with many parents who really have no interest in reformed criminals interacting with their kids.  Usually my civilian employment brings up that topic, and parents usually ask what type of screening process that adults go through.  My approach has been that if the need arises, I can contact people like this person I talked about and have him assist the Chaplain as a guest speaker possibly.

I have found that many people with past issues always seem to want to work with cadets. I'm sure many don't and probably never want to mention their past.  I can understand that people make bad choices, but we have to have a cut off.  In our society, that almost always begins with the "no felony convictions" clause for even the simplest of organizations.  A cadet?  I will take a serious case by case look at any cadet that comes to me.  Because we really may be able to change a kid who may have just screwed up.  The issue with that as for a cadet though, is the act would have been very recent. 
An Adult?  No, sorry, I'm glad you are a different person, but as a commander, I have about 35 people who are already members that I need to be concerned with.  An adult coming into CAP looking to be the exception falls pretty low on my list of priorities. I have a 5 person membership committee as well where we bring in each potential Senior and we crack open a soda and basically say, "Tell us your deepest darkest secrets"  We use the bright desk lamp, in dark cramped smoke filled office also.  But seriously, many of my Seniors have cadets of their own and really want to know who this person is.  There are many places you can serve.  CAP isn't it.
We can rant and rave about people being framed, or an overzealous prosecutor, but in the end, 12 people said you did it.  It may not be the perfect system, but nobody has thought of a better one.

[floridacyclist]

Of course, you always have adults who committed felony acts as kids and then grew up...and still face consequences

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354898,00.html

[flyerthom]

Of course, you always have adults who committed felony acts as kids and then grew up...and still face consequences

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,354898,00.html

And there is the gray area of this whole discussion.

Q: What is the difference between illegal and against the law?

A: One is a sick bird ...

[Flying Pig]

Ummmm, the guy is a convicted RAPIST.  

[0]

Well yes he was convicted, but it shouldn't define who he is.  I mean he was a kid at the time.  Should he have known better yes, but at the same time come on people who were convicted can learn from their mistakes and speak out against what they did, saying they were wrong and trying to make sure no one makes the same mistake they did.

[Hawk200]

Well yes he was convicted, but it shouldn't define who he is.  I mean he was a kid at the time.  Should he have known better yes, but at the same time come on people who were convicted can learn from their mistakes and speak out against what they did, saying they were wrong and trying to make sure no one makes the same mistake they did.

It does define who he is. He made a life altering choice for someone else, and now someone would have you believe that he is the victim. Where is that OK?

As for learning from his mistake, he still should be, but apparently has decided that in one case, he should be let off the hook. If no one grants a reprieve for him, then that's tough.

Too many people don't learn that any decision you make lasts forever. Everything you do defines who you are, and those decisions actually last long after you're dead.

[0]

Ok, and in this case he's only going near the school to attend his son's graduation.  So are you going to punish the son by not letting his father see him graduate?

And what about those who aren't allowed to go near the property to vote?  Or to attend a PUBLIC hearing? 

[Hawk200]

Ok, and in this case he's only going near the school to attend his son's graduation.  So are you going to punish the son by not letting his father see him graduate?

I'm not punishing his son, and neither is the government. As punishment for the man's conviction, he is forbidden to go on school grounds unless under certain conditions. The son has no punishment handed to him by the government, there isn't any.

You're doing an end run about people taking responsibility for their own actions by claiming that they are punishing the son. The father committed a crime years ago, and as such, he has to serve a punishment. It's the fathers crime that is being dealt with. The law states what he must suffer. Unfortunately, due to his own actions, he cannot go on school grounds. That's a perfect example of any decision you make lasting forever. He doesn't get to see his son's graduation due to his own criminal conduct. He has harmed his son, not the government.

Here's a scenario (one that doesn't involve the law): You have a worker that never shows to work on time, doesn't accomplish his or her assigned duties, leaves early without permission, and costs your company money due to not getting work done. Do you keep the individual around and pay them just because they have kids? It's a tough scenario, but many people look at it as punishing the children. It's not. It's eliminating an ineffective worker, and it's on the person who doesn't perform. This mans case is similar. He has disappointed his son due to his own actions, the government had nothing to do with it.

And what about those who aren't allowed to go near the property to vote?  Or to attend a PUBLIC hearing? 

I guess you missed this part (quoted from the article): "In August 2006, a state law went into effect prohibiting sex offenders from going onto school property without permission from the district superintendent. The only exceptions were government meetings or polling sites."

So your argument is invalid there. The law has an exception.

I won't get into the felons not voting thing.

[0]

The way I read that article it said that even yes those exceptions were made that final decision was up the superintendent.  the superintendent in question is upholding the policy of not at all going near the site even for voting.

edit,

I just reread that part of the article and I apologize I did misinterpret.

But I still agrue that in the case of a graduation an exception should be made so a father can see his son graduate. 

[Hawk200]

The way I read that article it said that even yes those exceptions were made that final decision was up the superintendent.  the superintendent in question is upholding the policy of not at all going near the site even for voting.

I understand that. It's far easier to just perform a blanket ban than to make an exception, and have that exception be the time when something bad happens.

The superintendant probably has additional concerns, anything from insurance requirements to local opinion of the school if she allows it. It wouldn't be very easy for her if she ended up with a mile long picket line outside the grounds if someone heard about it. Why should she be forced to endure something like that over the decision to allow a criminal to come on school grounds?

It stinks, but that father made a choice to commit a crime in the past. No one else should have to suffer for it, but it was his own decision, and one he has to live with.

[0]

Well at least for the graduation ceremony a one time event.  Say for example a relative of yours had a criminal record and wasn't allowed near a school.  Despite that ruling wouldn't you want your relative there to share in your accomplishment?

[Hawk200]

Well at least for the graduation ceremony a one time event.  Say for example a relative of yours had a criminal record and wasn't allowed near a school.  Despite that ruling wouldn't you want your relative there to share in your accomplishment?

Personally, I'd be disappointed, and I would tell them exactly what I told you here. I'd be a little annoyed that they had put themselves in that position in the first place. I'm the son of a cop, so I understand the purpose of the law, but it doesn't mean I'd necessarily like the situation.

If a relative of yours lost a license, and you had to drive them around all the time, would you be as understanding? Initially, I'd bet you would be, but eventually it would turn to resentment.

The fact that it's a one time situation mentioned here is what makes it easier to provide a "one time" exception. One time exceptions also have a tendency to turn into "precedent". This time something might not happen, or maybe not the next, but down the road something will go wrong, and a lot of people will have to suffer a great deal, because of that one time, there was an exception. And the person that suffers the most, down the road, is the next victim.

Any law that stands but makes exception for a chosen few is not fair law. And law is also to protect the community, not just to punish the criminal. Making exception poses risk to community. It's tough, but the law in question is to defend others as well.

[0]

So then should an individual who has served their time continue to be punished?  I have to agree in part and disagree in part with what you made.  Especially in cases like this where it was a one time thing it could be agrued that it was youthful stupidity.  Now I must admit if he were a repeat offender I'd be 100% in your corner. 

[Hawk200]

So then should an individual who has served their time continue to be punished?  I have to agree in part and disagree in part with what you made.  Especially in cases like this where it was a one time thing it could be agrued that it was youthful stupidity.  Now I must admit if he were a repeat offender I'd be 100% in your corner. 

That's were you start getting into tricky semantics. How do you know when a punishment is served? In this case, you're looking at his offense as a one time thing.

His restriction is part of protecting community. You see stuff all the time about how someone on a restraining order ends up killing, raping or maiming the person that they were supposed to be protected against. The restriction was there, and the criminal violated both the order, and comitted another crime as well.

Now, we don't even know this person in question. It could be a situation where he went, nothing happens, and everyone is fine. Or he could attend, and you see something in the papers a few months later about how he might have been molesting the next door neighbors kid for the last few years, and now the school superintendant is out of a job and sued for placing other children in danger. How does anyone know which future will play out? Is it worth the risk to make exception to a standing policy meant to protect the community?

What it boils down to is that it is a crime to go on school grounds if you have a sex offender conviction. That's not really a continuing punishment, it's a different law with different consequences.

As far as the original post goes, there may be states where it is illegal for someone with a felony to even be in the presence of minors. It's a law, and it is there for a reason. If we tried to make exceptions for everyone we think might be deserving, there is a higher probability that would we would end up with far more victims. Is that worth the risk, as well?

[mikeylikey]

I was just thinking how much we are discussing this guy not being allowed to attend his kids 8 grade graduation.

CAN you imagine what crap the kid (son of a rapist) is getting from his or her classmates.  Everyone remember what it was like in Junior and Senior High School...... and we weren't the kids of known felons and rapists making a stir in the community.

I wonder how jacked up this kid will be in the head years from now. 

This guy should have thought about his kids.......and kept quiet. 

[Hawk200]

CAN you imagine what crap the kid (son of a rapist) is getting from his or her classmates.  Everyone remember what it was like in Junior and Senior High School...... and we weren't the kids of known felons and rapists making a stir in the community.

I caught crap because my Dad was a cop. Tell someone they're being a jerk, and the response was usually something to the effect of "gonna have your Daddy arrest me?".

Yeah, the kid has it tough, but it was something his father did. And there are a lot of small minded people that may not want to be around the son, believing that he may do the same thing. Sins of the father, and all that. It's garbage, but there are many people that believe it just like there are people that are still stupid enough to ascribe to racism.

[isuhawkeye]

Michael Montecalvo is a convicted fellon.

mike as a dedicated paramedic was responding to a call when his unit was involved in a tarable  accident.  as a result mike is now a fellon.  how would you handle his case?

[mikeylikey]

Michael Montecalvo is a convicted fellon.

mike as a dedicated paramedic was responding to a call when his unit was involved in a tarable  accident.  as a result mike is now a fellon.  how would you handle his case?

What?!?!

[Hawk200]

Michael Montecalvo is a convicted fellon.

mike as a dedicated paramedic was responding to a call when his unit was involved in a tarable  accident.  as a result mike is now a fellon.  how would you handle his case?

In what manner? It stinks, but if he's a convicted felon, and the local state says he doesn't work with kids, then he doesn't work with kids. Are you willing to break the law by allowing it? The answer is that you don't handle his case. The law says what he can do, and can't do. We don't have the option to determine that the individual should be allowed to anything.

[Hawk200]

Michael Montecalvo is a convicted fellon.

mike as a dedicated paramedic was responding to a call when his unit was involved in a tarable  accident.  as a result mike is now a fellon.  how would you handle his case?

What?!?!

Just looked it up. Try ' "michael montecalvo" felon paramedic ' in a search engine. Should only get the one hit.

Added: here's the link: http://www.emsresponder.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=20&id=3404

[mikeylikey]

^ That stinks.......

Totally different situation, and I think CAP NHQ would allow that guy to join.  As far as a rapist, he or she probably would not be allowed to join. 

It all depends on the type of felony a person is convicted of. 

[Ned]

So then should an individual who has served their time continue to be punished? 

FWIW, the law does not consider things like registration requirements and restrictions on movement or employment based on a particular kind of felony convictions as "punishment."  (Although, clearly some of these requirments look and feel like what we commonly consider punishment.)

These kinds of restrictions are considered "regulatory" and are designed to protect the public from current danger.

Kind of like the civil commitment statutes that allow folks to be detained in mental hospitals.  It may seem like jail and punishment since they are locked up, but the goal is not so much to "punish" the patient as it is to protect the patient and the public from harm.

Ned Lee
Former CAP Legal Officer

[Hawk200]

^ That stinks.......

Totally different situation, and I think CAP NHQ would allow that guy to join.  As far as a rapist, he or she probably would not be allowed to join. 

It all depends on the type of felony a person is convicted of. 

It's a little wierd as to what constitutes a felony. In some states, a crime is a misdemeanor, but in others it's felony. Even if a felon moves to a state where the crime is a misdemeanor, they're still a felon. It's screwy.

Personally, I'm not for a Federal police force, but I don't think it would be a bad idea for there to be some Federal codes for felonies and misdemeanors. I understand that in some states it's a misdemeanor to beat the crap out of someone burning a flag, but in others it's a hate crime. Not sure how that works, but it makes no sense to me.

[mikeylikey]

I understand that in some states it's a misdemeanor to beat the crap out of someone burning a flag, but in others it's a hate crime. Not sure how that works, but it makes no sense to me.

Consider me a "unconvicted" felon (don't tell anyone) 

[Flying Pig]

He taught his son about the importance of an education.  Now he can teach his him the importance of not breaking the law.

Some of you are completely naive of how the world works.  The man is a rapist plain and simple.  Yes, there are some crimes you never recover from.  Violent sexual assaults are one of them.  This isn't a matter of "I made a mistake and paid my debt."  This is a matter of you really screwed up pal.  Now keep your mouth shut and watch your sons graduation on video.  Seems to me that dad is show boating a little.  I bet his wife and son are really thrilled that daddy let everyone know.  I imagine his son is pretty excited that he gets to spend his high school years as the son of the rapist.  I am amazed that people are coming to his defense.

When sex offenders go to jail, they get put in protective custody because even the other inmates cant stand being around them, now we have CAP members feeling bad for him because the poor guy doesnt get to watch his kid graduate 8th grade.
I dont feel the slightest bit bad for him.  I feel bad for his family that he just couldn't keep his skeleton in the closet.

#1. Hes lucky he got in before the registration law took effect.
#2. He's lucky he didn't get shanked in jail.

[mikeylikey]

^ Well put.  I completely agree.  You are so spot on.

:clap: :clap:

The guy in question pretty much ruined not only his life but his kids lives too. 

I bet they move out of their town within a year.     

[flyerthom]

Michael Montecalvo is a convicted fellon.

mike as a dedicated paramedic was responding to a call when his unit was involved in a tarable  accident.  as a result mike is now a fellon.  how would you handle his case?

What?!?!

Running red lights and siren to a call. Smoked a stop sigh and hit a car crossing the intersection. Killed someone. Conviction and sentenced to 2 years. Spent 7 months in the clink. Can never be a paramedic in Ohio again. Worse sentence is the life time of memories. He owns the responsibility and has spent the time since doing what he can to prevent a similar occurrence.

{ OT for a second} A study through Annuals of Emergency Medicine Hunt, Ricahrd C MD FACEP etal. Volume 25, Issue 4, Pages 507-511 (April 1995) showed that the average time save for ambulances running red lights and sirens showed a 43.5 second time savings.  (Which is why CAP does not need blue lights )

If memory serves me thiswas one of  the reasons EVOC courses evolved.


Would a man like Michael be an asset to CAP? Beyond a doubt. Would the guy with the rape conviction? Judging by his attitude of defiance in the news article - dubious. Commanders and CAP need discretion.

[Hawk200]

Would a man like Michael be an asset to CAP? Beyond a doubt. Would the guy with the rape conviction? Judging by his attitude of defiance in the news article - dubious. Commanders and CAP need discretion.

We probably don't have any discretion in the matter. If there is any Federal or state law that prohibits felons working with minors, we don't have a choice in the matter. If even one state prohibits it, we would have issues if a member with a felony background joined.

The various issues would be a member moving to another state where it is prohibited, or being in a senior unit that may do O-flights, or moving local to a cadet or composite unit. Our members may not move a lot, but it could be an issue.

[flyboy]

In reading over this thread it's readily apparent that many CAP members want simple black and white rules which require no judgment and allow no exercise of discretion.  I guess this is why I really don't fit into CAP very well and have pretty much left it behind in my life.   

[Hawk200]

In reading over this thread it's readily apparent that many CAP members want simple black and white rules which require no judgment and allow no exercise of discretion.  I guess this is why I really don't fit into CAP very well and have pretty much left it behind in my life.   

It's not a matter of wanting simple black and white rules, it's a matter that simple black and white rules exist. There are also existing laws. Failure to obey existing laws isn't only unethical, it's criminal.

A lot of people don't like rules, regulations and laws. Obedience without repercussion isn't an option. CAP doesn't get to decide whether or not we follow them. Saying that CAP needs the discretion on whether or not to comply is just wrong. Period. There are existing rules, and there are consequences for not following them.

If you decided not to follow the rules, that's your option. You made the best choice for all concerned by leaving.

[flyboy]

This is where the ability to critically think about an issue is useful, and so often missing in out society.

It's not a matter of wanting simple black and white rules, it's a matter that simple black and white rules exist. There are also existing laws. Failure to obey existing laws isn't only unethical, it's criminal.
Actually, the rules regarding membership of felons give discretion to the squadron commander. If you take the idea that failure to obey a law is criminal, then anyone who has ever gotten a speed limit is a criminal and should be disqualified for CAP service.  Again, discretion and judgment in the enforcement of the rules is needed.

A lot of people don't like rules, regulations and laws. Obedience without repercussion isn't an option. CAP doesn't get to decide whether or not we follow them. Saying that CAP needs the discretion on whether or not to comply is just wrong. Period. There are existing rules, and there are consequences for not following them.
Actually, CAP does get to make its own internal regulations, and the organization has discretion in the how and when of enforcement.  Outside of CAP this even happens all the way up to the judicial level when prosecutors exercise their own discretion on what to charge and what to ignore.  Unfortunately, this discretion is too often delegated young inexperienced prosecutors who exercise it without adequate supervision or an appreciation for the power of their office.


If you decided not to follow the rules, that's your option. You made the best choice for all concerned by leaving.
Who said I didn't folow the rules?  Actually, there are no negative marks on my service record, although there is a Wing Commander's Commendation there.  What I said was that I am absolutely dismayed by the mentallity of so many members who simply can't see that not all issues are simply black and white. 
[/quote] 

[LittleIronPilot]

In reading over this thread it's readily apparent that many CAP members want simple black and white rules which require no judgment and allow no exercise of discretion.  I guess this is why I really don't fit into CAP very well and have pretty much left it behind in my life.   

BINGO!

A felony is a felony? Oh how nice it is to live a life where people fit neatly into boxes.

BTW...I too am a former Law Enforcement Officer and have seen how EASY it is for someone to get a non-violent felony. Your state is not like my state, some acts here are felonies that are not there.

To assume that ANYONE with a felony is not worth of CAP is laughable.

[LittleIronPilot]

In reading over this thread it's readily apparent that many CAP members want simple black and white rules which require no judgment and allow no exercise of discretion.  I guess this is why I really don't fit into CAP very well and have pretty much left it behind in my life.   

It's not a matter of wanting simple black and white rules, it's a matter that simple black and white rules exist. There are also existing laws. Failure to obey existing laws isn't only unethical, it's criminal.

A lot of people don't like rules, regulations and laws. Obedience without repercussion isn't an option. CAP doesn't get to decide whether or not we follow them. Saying that CAP needs the discretion on whether or not to comply is just wrong. Period. There are existing rules, and there are consequences for not following them.

If you decided not to follow the rules, that's your option. You made the best choice for all concerned by leaving.

Hawk...I guarantee you that if you were a Georgia resident I could arrest you on laws you have never even HEARD of.

[DrJbdm]

Lets look at it this way, would the Armed Forces take any of these people?  Lets completely base our membership criteria on what the Armed Forces is doing...esp the Air Force. I'm not talking age or disability criteria, only criminal or other background check criteria.

  If the Military isn't taking them, then neither should CAP. As a part of the Air Force family we should strive to be as close to them in our standards for membership as the law will allow us to be.

[0]

Lets look at it this way, would the Armed Forces take any of these people?  Lets completely base our membership criteria on what the Armed Forces is doing...esp the Air Force. I'm not talking age or disability criteria, only criminal or other background check criteria.

  If the Military isn't taking them, then neither should CAP. As a part of the Air Force family we should strive to be as close to them in our standards for membership as the law will allow us to be.

Well given that criteria we'd be letting just about anyone in.  The military is allowing more people with criminal records in.  But also this is why we have membership boards. 

[Hawk200]

In reading over this thread it's readily apparent that many CAP members want simple black and white rules which require no judgment and allow no exercise of discretion.  I guess this is why I really don't fit into CAP very well and have pretty much left it behind in my life.   

BINGO!

A felony is a felony? Oh how nice it is to live a life where people fit neatly into boxes.

BTW...I too am a former Law Enforcement Officer and have seen how EASY it is for someone to get a non-violent felony. Your state is not like my state, some acts here are felonies that are not there.

To assume that ANYONE with a felony is not worth of CAP is laughable.

I didn't say anyone with a felony is not worthy of CAP. The point brought up is whether or not it is legal for a felon to work with a minor. You do remember that's how the thread started, right?

If there is a law that says that felons don't work with minors, then that is a law, and CAP has no discretion whatsoever to allow it. Your statement seems to indicate a belief that CAP can ignore any given law that they so choose under a "commander's discretion". It doesn't work that way.

Hawk...I guarantee you that if you were a Georgia resident I could arrest you on laws you have never even HEARD of.

I believe it. With our legal system, eventually everyone ends a criminal. But that doesn't change the fact that we don't get to ignore law. We don't like those laws, you get them changed. There's ways to do it.

[Hawk200]

Well given that criteria we'd be letting just about anyone in.  The military is allowing more people with criminal records in.  But also this is why we have membership boards. 

Incorrect. Some branches allow waivers, but not all. I know the Army Guard doesn't, even though the active duty does. I've seen our recruiters turn people away. The Reserve might, they tend to follow Federal guidlines.

I do know that Criminal Domestic Violence convictions are not waiverable. They don't allow someone to carry a weapon, so they are disqualified from any military service. There are some things that you can't get in on at all.

Last I knew the Marine Corps hasn't accepted anyone in the last few years with a felony. Misdemeanors require a rather extensive waiver. I don't think the Air Force allows it. Don't know about the Navy, or the Coast Guard.

[lordmonar]

Lets look at it this way, would the Armed Forces take any of these people?  Lets completely base our membership criteria on what the Armed Forces is doing...esp the Air Force. I'm not talking age or disability criteria, only criminal or other background check criteria.

  If the Military isn't taking them, then neither should CAP. As a part of the Air Force family we should strive to be as close to them in our standards for membership as the law will allow us to be.

There was a recent article in the AF times about the Army particually asking for and getting waivers for everything from DUIs, Drug Offenses, Assualts, Vehicular Manslauter and even two Homocides.

So that is not a very useful.

As it is....the current system should be good.  We send in the finger print cards....if they get rejected we for a felony we submit a waiver.

[mikeylikey]

There was a recent article in the AF times about the Army particularly asking for and getting waivers for everything from DUIs, Drug Offenses, Assaults, Vehicular Manslaughter and even two Homicides.

If the actual numbers were really known.......everyone would be shocked.  The only way the Army met it's recruiting goals were with waivers for FY07 (both medical and criminal).  The other factor that played a role was the increase in enlistment age.  As it stands right now, if it were not for the recent incentives added for Captains to stay in the Army, we would be lacking many Company grade Officers. (Mikey took the cash bonus even though I already knew I was not leaving the service)  The Army is screwed people wise. 

As far as the military taking felons, I have no problem as long as they are not violent offenders.  I would even go as far as making convicted felons who so choose to serve their time in the military (without pay of course). 

There is a HUGE difference between a rapist and a person who got a felony conviction for not paying taxes (just my example to show violent and non violent offenders). 

As far as the poster above saying we should follow the military lead on waivers......perhaps we should.  Let the non violent felons in and the violent felons stay out. 

[0]

As far as the military taking felons, I have no problem as long as they are not violent offenders.  I would even go as far as making convicted felons who so choose to serve their time in the military (without pay of course). 

There is a HUGE difference between a rapist and a person who got a felony conviction for not paying taxes (just my example to show violent and non violent offenders). 

As far as the poster above saying we should follow the military lead on waivers......perhaps we should.  Let the non violent felons in and the violent felons stay out. 

I agree with that.  Plus it will also give felons good training that when they're time is up that they can use and make something of themselves other than committing crimes.

[Gunner C]

As far as the military taking felons, I have no problem as long as they are not violent offenders.  I would even go as far as making convicted felons who so choose to serve their time in the military (without pay of course). 

There is a HUGE difference between a rapist and a person who got a felony conviction for not paying taxes (just my example to show violent and non violent offenders). 

As far as the poster above saying we should follow the military lead on waivers......perhaps we should.  Let the non violent felons in and the violent felons stay out. 

I agree with that.  Plus it will also give felons good training that when they're time is up that they can use and make something of themselves other than committing crimes.

Since the military is the folks who have to put up with him, there's a good chance that they're pretty good at weighing who's a good risk and who isn't.  Most employers will consider employing a felon - a decision based on the facts of the crime is the best and most equitable way to deal with it.  I had a guy on my team who was a convicted felon - turned out to be quite a hero in Mogadishu.

GC

[Flying Pig]

As far as the military taking felons, I have no problem as long as they are not violent offenders.  I would even go as far as making convicted felons who so choose to serve their time in the military (without pay of course). 

There is a HUGE difference between a rapist and a person who got a felony conviction for not paying taxes (just my example to show violent and non violent offenders). 

As far as the poster above saying we should follow the military lead on waivers......perhaps we should.  Let the non violent felons in and the violent felons stay out. 

I agree with that.  Plus it will also give felons good training that when they're time is up that they can use and make something of themselves other than committing crimes.

I wouldnt mind giving people military service, but PLEASE pay them. It would be near impossible to live in the military without pay.  Your just asking for a guy/gal to fail, Go AWOL/UA, etc.  Having been a Plt. Sgt. myself, military life is hard enough, I dont want to have to deal with a guy who cant even go buy a soda. 

[MIKE]

This has drifted long enough.