Posted on 05/12/2008 2:31:21 PM PDT by billorites
Recently, there were a number of media stories about how the U.S. Army has been recruiting more men with criminal records. When pressed about this, the army released a report showing that recruits let in via "moral waivers" made better combat soldiers. That is, they got promoted faster, re-enlisted at a higher rate, got more awards for valor and were noted for superior combat performance. They were also better educated, and more likely to talk back. A slightly higher percentage of them got punished for that.
All this is nothing new. It was noted as far back as World War II, when detailed records of troop performance were first compiled and analyzed. A disproportionate number of troops that excelled in combat, also had disciplinary problems when off the battlefield. The conventional wisdom was that someone with a "taste for combat" also lacked respect for authority. Research since World War II has shown that risk-taking behavior is the basis of brave acts, as well as criminal ones, drug use, and addiction to things like gambling and dangerous sports.
The U.S. Army has, for the last sixty years, turned down most recruits with a criminal record. The reason was that, since an army (especially in peacetime) depended on discipline to function, anyone who broke the law had already demonstrated problems with following orders. Before September 11, 2001, the army found that 27 percent of recruits with criminal records (and given a "moral waiver" to enlist), didn't finish their enlistment because of misconduct (refusing to obey orders, or just a bad attitude). This was twice the rate of troops who did not need a moral waiver. Back then, less than four percent of recruits got moral waivers. That usually required references from teachers, clergy or employers attesting to how the applicant had shaped up, and was worthy of acceptance. But since 2004, the percentage of recruit getting in with moral waivers has tripled to 13 percent. Yet there has not been a noticeable decline in troops quality. There is still a higher percentage of moral waiver recruits getting discharged early, but not double the rate of those without moral waivers.
The army has found ways to lower its traditional admission standards, yet still get people who can perform well in a professional force. This is not just the case with those who do poorly on written tests, or did not finish high school. It's especially the case with those allowed in on waivers. The most common items waived are medical conditions, criminal records or drug use, in that order. Last year, most of the moral waivers were for juvenile offenses. Less than one percent (511) of last years recruits (80,407) received moral waivers for adult criminal records. Keep in mind that the numbers were talking about here are small, and that the negative impact of recruits with moral waivers is basically non-existent.
Most waivers are for medical problems. For example, many urban recruits have asthma problems. If the recruit is headed for a job that does not require the kind of physical effort that low grade asthma would interfere with, a waiver would be granted. If a prospect has a low grade (no felonies) criminal record, and appears to have moved on from that sort of thing, a waiver is possible. Same with prior drug use. Prospects are made aware of the regular, unannounced, drug tests for troops on active duty. Asking for testimonials from responsible adults helps deal with those seeking moral waivers. The army also has new psychological tests that indicate those that have put their bad behavior behind them, and which haven't.
My Father’s best friend in WWII was a soldier who had been let out of Federal prison to join the army. He was a moonshiner. He was the oldest soldier in the company and Daddy said he was probably the best engineer tho he couldn’t read or write.
Great, I was refused back in the late 70’s because of my record....I woulda been great!!
I stole a car when I was 16 and I got a waiver from the Army to join, and a pardon from the governor for completing my service. If it wasnt for getting injured in Iraq I would have probably gone on to retire from the service with a full 20 instead I got 14 with a medical retirement and va disability. Not all criminals are bad, I would say those who are young like I was are the perfect candidates because they are the most readilly able to be molded.
“People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.”
George Orwell
One of Murphy’s laws:
An inspection ready unit will not pass combat
A combat ready unit will not pass inspection
I’ll take a combat ready unit over an inspection unit any day.
Talking back to authority. Getting into scrapes that were none of my business, when I had a perfectly good opportunity to walk away. Going around the end of the fence rather than scaling it, and dodging the following lights.
Seems like I was a worse SOB than I remember. So how come I never got higher than E-3 in four years two months and twenty-four days of active duty?
Nothing was ever proved at the court-martial....
A lot of units had two sets of noncoms - one for combat, and one for town.
I totally agree with this. It has a rehabilition aspect as well.
I had a “background” prior to joining the Navy. I think being a little rough around the edges helped me.
“Nice guys finish last”. Even in the military. Sheesh.
Both good guys and bad guys can make great soldiers. Robert E. Lee was the very image of propriety yet Gen. Scott said we would not have won the Mexican War if not for Lieutenant R. E. Lee.
Hell, I made E-3 six times during my career. You didn't miss all that much .. ! ">)
This is one of those things that a PHD candidate could write a thesis about. It’d be interesting to know if it is really true.
Football coaches look for these qualifications when recruiting linebackers - ‘’ 6’2’’. 220 lbs, preferably with at least one arrest for assault and battery’’
Ping to Rep. Paul Broun.
God bless you for your service, man....thanks.
“Winning: Bad Boys Make Better Soldiers”
One case in point...
IIRC, Major John Howard was on a panel during a D-Day Plus 50 Years
symposium at U. of New Orleans (along with Stephen Ambrose).
Howard noted that it seemed to be that the men who were discipline cases
during training were the ones that really carried the day in battle.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Howard_%28British_army_officer%29
/johnny
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.