4 ms·

I think the camps might work in some situations, if they are properly run. The missing ingredient, is 'something to believe in'. The reason that 'disciplinari

I think the camps might work in some situations, if they are properly run. The missing ingredient, is 'something to believe in'. The reason that 'disciplinarian' measures work in the forces, is because you're doing it for a cause much greater, more important than yourself. You have to 'dig deep' to find that. And without a 'cause' - it won't work. Also - in the forces you can have incredible amounts of responsibility - and responsibility really changes people. You've see the changes when people become parents - well - it's the same in the Navy/Army etc.. Finally - is the amazing cool things you get to do. Travel, jump out of planes, blow things up. etc. I'm not justifying this necessarily, just pointing out the nature of the changes that often happen. I doubt this guy would be well suited to the forces, but you never know. A couple of years in the Navy - seeing the world, having some responsibility, might have changed him. But for many of these types, simply finding the right creative outlet might be it.

dalke 10y ago
If movies are correct, judges during the pre-volunteer military days would tell someone their choices were the military "to straighten you up" or jail. I think that's the better comparison than your comparison to the modern military. How often did that work back then? Because I get the idea that the answer is "not much", or at least, not worth it for the military. The regulations are clear that the option of "military or jail" is no longer permitted. Volunteers might be in the military for the greater cause, certainly. (Though some are in it for college money or other reasons.) Draftees often have a different goal - keep your head down, do the time, and get out. What they believe in is getting out. FWIW, even after the draft finished, marijuana use in the military was also pretty common, eg, http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/19/us/navy-reports-6-of-14-killed-aboard-nimitz-had-used-marijuana.html http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/19/us/navy-reports-6-of-14-ki... reports that 6 of 14 killed aboard the USS Nimitz had used marijuana, in 1981. This guy from Cracked might have fit right in to the pot scene among the enlisted men.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  It wasn't just 'in the movies' - it was for real. Did it work? So long as the troubled kids got through '2 years' - then I would argue that it worked. 'Back in the day' - the Army was a job for people who were somewhat patriotic, but it was also a job - at least for privates, it was pretty straightforward. As long as you 'did your work' - it would keep someone focused on doing something, and I suggest they would be 'much better off' than having spent the time in jail. 'Back in the day' - almost everyone was patriotic to some extent. 'Slacker' might have been someone who didn't wear a hat in public (!) or later, had 'long hair' (!). These kinds of people aren't hardened criminals or bad people, just people off the path, that need some bit of motivation - even if it's a little coerced. And even 'back in the day' when military standards were not so hardcore - I there was still enough 'value' work being done, enough of a cause for them to 'mostly believe in'. I think it would be a great program for some kids, even to this day. Prison is the worst thing for not-quite-real criminals. It creates a really negative atmosphere, hardens them, depresses them - it's like the absolute worse possibly 'peer pressure' situation imaginable. The worst role models possible. This guy is not a bad kid. He's more of a 'catcher in the rye' type - just needs to find his path. When you are pushed a little bit on a path for a couple years, that includes a very rudimentary amount of 'getting up' 'doing something constructive' 'learning something' 'applying yourself' ... then I think you have enough momentum (and hopefully a few dollars in the bank) to possibly do something afterwards.
  - dalke 10y ago
    It looks like you've gone from "often really changes people" to "get through two years by having the goal of getting out." The latter is the same goal for those in jail. The question I have is, how do you know that conscripted service, which is what you propose, is more effective than prison. By that I mean a sane prison, like what Norway has, with the goal of rehabilitation, and not the inhumane US prisons designed to punish. And is it more effective than other alternatives? Yes, movies often portray military service as transformative, but movies want to tell a good story, and military service is one of many ways to structure a bildungsroman. (Movies also tend to portray the good side of the military.) I don't understand your "back in the day" comments. Almost everyone now is patriotic to some extent too. Remember, back in the day, many Americans did not consider communists, socialist, unionizers, peace activists, or people of Japanese ancestry to be patriotic Americans. These are people who would have been put in jail or internment camps. Question for you: were Eugene Debs, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer "patriotic" back in the day? What of the 100+ communist party leaders jailed under the Smith Act? The problem I have with saying "some kids" is that nearly anything will work for "some kids". Certainly the military works for some people. Jail works for some people. College works for some people. Getting a job works for some people. Religion works for some people. Counseling works for some people. Taking up a sport works for some people. Moving to another town works for some people. Simply waiting a few years can also work. The hard part is knowing which methods are appropriate for which people. And training someone for military service is not cheap. How much money should we spend for a "catcher in the rye" type, and are there cheaper alternatives? Forced military service as a alternative to jail is not going to happen again. The military well remembers what damage even a single disgruntled draftee can do in the modern highly-technical military. Take a look at all the sabotage done during Vietnam when a large fraction of the military were against the war. (Eg, sailing of the USS Ranger was delayed for months after its main reduction gear was sabotaged.) Also, the modern "hardcore" standards are only possible because everyone is a volunteer.

dalke 10y ago

If movies are correct, judges during the pre-volunteer military days would tell someone their choices were the military "to straighten you up" or jail. I think that's the better comparison than your comparison to the modern military. How often did that work back then? Because I get the idea that the answer is "not much", or at least, not worth it for the military. The regulations are clear that the option of "military or jail" is no longer permitted. Volunteers might be in the military for the greater cause, certainly. (Though some are in it for college money or other reasons.) Draftees often have a different goal - keep your head down, do the time, and get out. What they believe in is getting out. FWIW, even after the draft finished, marijuana use in the military was also pretty common, eg, http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/19/us/navy-reports-6-of-14-killed-aboard-nimitz-had-used-marijuana.html http://www.nytimes.com/1981/06/19/us/navy-reports-6-of-14-ki... reports that 6 of 14 killed aboard the USS Nimitz had used marijuana, in 1981. This guy from Cracked might have fit right in to the pot scene among the enlisted men.

jomamaxx 10y ago
It wasn't just 'in the movies' - it was for real. Did it work? So long as the troubled kids got through '2 years' - then I would argue that it worked. 'Back in the day' - the Army was a job for people who were somewhat patriotic, but it was also a job - at least for privates, it was pretty straightforward. As long as you 'did your work' - it would keep someone focused on doing something, and I suggest they would be 'much better off' than having spent the time in jail. 'Back in the day' - almost everyone was patriotic to some extent. 'Slacker' might have been someone who didn't wear a hat in public (!) or later, had 'long hair' (!). These kinds of people aren't hardened criminals or bad people, just people off the path, that need some bit of motivation - even if it's a little coerced. And even 'back in the day' when military standards were not so hardcore - I there was still enough 'value' work being done, enough of a cause for them to 'mostly believe in'. I think it would be a great program for some kids, even to this day. Prison is the worst thing for not-quite-real criminals. It creates a really negative atmosphere, hardens them, depresses them - it's like the absolute worse possibly 'peer pressure' situation imaginable. The worst role models possible. This guy is not a bad kid. He's more of a 'catcher in the rye' type - just needs to find his path. When you are pushed a little bit on a path for a couple years, that includes a very rudimentary amount of 'getting up' 'doing something constructive' 'learning something' 'applying yourself' ... then I think you have enough momentum (and hopefully a few dollars in the bank) to possibly do something afterwards.
- dalke 10y ago
  It looks like you've gone from "often really changes people" to "get through two years by having the goal of getting out." The latter is the same goal for those in jail. The question I have is, how do you know that conscripted service, which is what you propose, is more effective than prison. By that I mean a sane prison, like what Norway has, with the goal of rehabilitation, and not the inhumane US prisons designed to punish. And is it more effective than other alternatives? Yes, movies often portray military service as transformative, but movies want to tell a good story, and military service is one of many ways to structure a bildungsroman. (Movies also tend to portray the good side of the military.) I don't understand your "back in the day" comments. Almost everyone now is patriotic to some extent too. Remember, back in the day, many Americans did not consider communists, socialist, unionizers, peace activists, or people of Japanese ancestry to be patriotic Americans. These are people who would have been put in jail or internment camps. Question for you: were Eugene Debs, Charles Schenck and Elizabeth Baer "patriotic" back in the day? What of the 100+ communist party leaders jailed under the Smith Act? The problem I have with saying "some kids" is that nearly anything will work for "some kids". Certainly the military works for some people. Jail works for some people. College works for some people. Getting a job works for some people. Religion works for some people. Counseling works for some people. Taking up a sport works for some people. Moving to another town works for some people. Simply waiting a few years can also work. The hard part is knowing which methods are appropriate for which people. And training someone for military service is not cheap. How much money should we spend for a "catcher in the rye" type, and are there cheaper alternatives? Forced military service as a alternative to jail is not going to happen again. The military well remembers what damage even a single disgruntled draftee can do in the modern highly-technical military. Take a look at all the sabotage done during Vietnam when a large fraction of the military were against the war. (Eg, sailing of the USS Ranger was delayed for months after its main reduction gear was sabotaged.) Also, the modern "hardcore" standards are only possible because everyone is a volunteer.