That's outrageous!

I wonder why they feel it necessary to give HIM such a special privilige when there are lots of other young lads who have had one conviction for something very minor and who have never re-offended, but who will never be able to join the armed forces.

This is very strange - and very wrong. He obviously has a natural inclination for violence and this will just reinforce and refine it.

Sorry, but I think that the army is probably the best place for him.

If our legal system, the courts and prison service cannot provide permanent home for people like these then I don't want them roaming around at will. At least in the army someone will know where he is. He will have a regimented lifestyle (no pun intended) and will be taught to obey authority absolutely. Whilst he will be given training with guns he will not be issued ammunition unless in a designated war zone or on a training range, where all ammunition is counted out and back in again.

It is the one who is 'on an art course' somewhere OUT there that scares me. No-one knows where and no-one is watching him in quite the same way as the army watch the other one! Remember that the army don't like to be shown up by their soldiers and are strict authoritarians, but the probation service is sadly underfinanced and DOES lose lifers (those who are on life license and should report regularly to a probation officer).

I would be much happier if they had been released on the proviso that both of them joined the army for life! Then I wouldn't have to think about them!

Stef

Yes - I can appreciate what you say, Steff - but it is still not fair to the legions of young lads (and lasses) that screwed up just once for a 'minor' offence and have never done it again. I used to specialise in criminal law and worked in a specialist practice. We used to divide our workload in to two sections - driving offences and non- driving offences - of the non-driving offence clients, about 40% of our workload were first timers - about a third of those got convicted, usually with a non-custodial sentance - and about half of that group we would never hear from again, presumably they decided to 'go straight'. Many of those people (usually under 25) find it really hard to find a job because of their criminal record, which they are usually required to disclose when applying for work, and they are NEVER allowed in to the armed forces.

My point here is that if you make an exception for one, then you should follow through and change the rule so that anyone with a conviction could join the armed forces.

But would we want an army made up of convicts - possibly not! I certainly wouldn't. I don't care what the training is like, all I know that people who offend generally have a solipsistic way of looking at the world and all the training in the world won't change that. This lad, in particular, might have his natural proclivity for violence channelled by the army, but sooner or later there will come a time when he is not under 24 hour surveillance and then he will be a fully trained killing machine without a social conscience.