In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article ,
Wes wrote:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

How low are they going? We talking physical standards or
criminal history?

They have been waiving felonies.

I had a bad feeling you were going to tell me that.

I *hope* the choice isn't jail or the military and they are
enlisting to try to turn their life around.

Umm. When I was a kid, one way bad kids in big trouble were handled
was to *require* them to enlist.

This is different. During the time you are referencing, the courts
wouldn't enter judgment and after a set period, would dismiss
without convicting. Now, they are taking convicted felons.

Umm, the kid did the same bad thing in both cases. What changed was
the handling. Which was my point.

Sort of.
Even back in the day a convicted felon was generally not waived.
Nipped in the bud is one thing. That isn't what we are seeing at present.

Well. I recall some pretty bad ones, but yes the authorities were trying to nip
it in the bud. And it more often than not worked.

The French Foreign Legion is the extreme case of this.


Gunner's comment about training felons for future service to their gang has
merit and as a practical matter, it's actually happened.

This inadvertent training has always been true, I think.

Joe Gwinn