That’s been a problem for a long time, I believe. Gangs send people to the military to get training. They’re expected to return and train the rest of the gang. I like to think some gang members use the military to escape gang life, but I can’t back that up with any data.
Stupid, drunk social media posts have ruined the careers of many a young service member.
I truly believe that mandatory service is not going to change the path of the majority of individuals “destined” for a life of crime. If anything, it will simply make for better trained criminals. There are strong socioeconomic reasons behind the “crime problem” in this country which, unless solved, mandatory service will not help.
Socio-economics is not the main driver of crime. If that were true, there would be no such thing as “white” crime. Being poor is no excuse for criminal conduct. The town I grew-up in was low-income, yet there was no crime. That was true of most of the towns where I lived. We all knew the areas to avoid where there was crime. Those areas had amoral/immoral people and raised their children to be that way.
I was raised to obey the law and be generous to others. There are low-lifes of all ethnicities and wealth. Denigrating people by assuming only the poor are criminals or that being poor is an excuse for criminal behavior is wrong.
First of all, noone is denigrating anyone. I grew up poor, there is a difference in poor and POOR. I didn’t prescribe the exact reasons behind all crime but in general, the root causes of crime are well documented and researched. Crime is primarily the outcome of multiple adverse social, economic, cultural and family conditions.
This is something for which there is no solution. Certain aspects can be controlled/contained to various degrees, but cannot be eliminated. Voltaire, about 500 years ago, wrote of the same conditions we are familiar with, crime, prostitution, poverty, etc. With all the resources governments around the world, including in the USA, have put to bear against these issues, we still have those same issues.
Technology does not eliminate problems, it only changes them. I understand that some prostitutes now use electronic payment methods, and drug dealers take EBT cards. Welfare has not ended poverty, but, in fact, has increased it.
I agree that mandatory service will not end poverty and crime, but sometimes it is a means out of a bad situation. A friend of mine grew-up in South Central, he joined the military as a way out. He served 20 years in the military. He told me when he was younger, before he entered the military, that his mother asked him why are you working when you can get free housing and food from the government? She, and most of the rest of his family are still there. The mentality of his mother is why the government cannot end poverty by “paying people to stay on the plantation” (that is actually what my friend said to me).
I agree that going into voluntary service as a career can definitely be a “way out”. However, that is very different than mandatory service, conscription, where there is little pay and it is a temporary situation. Researching the premise that mandatory service lowers crime it is clear that there is no such correlation. Most that come out of such will go back to wherever they came from and pick up where they left off, that’s just fact.
There have been a least a couple different scales of crime rates done per country. The first one I remember was Bill Whittles “Number One With a Bullet” (still on youtube) wherein he went through all the nations and their crime related gun deaths…granted this assessment was done about 9 years ago. His interesting conclusion: The United States would drop to 211 in the world for violent crime BUT…he also explained the crime rates per the different states and what party controlled those states…once these states were removed from the ranks, then we were 211 th. At the risk of being “political” those states with the highest crime/gun deaths were Democrat controlled states. If one will peruse the National Crime statistics, that’s still the defining ranking. The worst states for crime are still democrat controlled states with the exception of the two who now have the distinct ranking of being the two safest states in the nation. Vermont and I believe the other one is now Maine…with no state firearms restrictions. Not sure of the Maine governor but I believe the governor of Vermont may be a democrat…? I’m sure I’ll be corrected.
**Sadly the term “militia” has acquired an undeserved bad rank. Our state Constitutions have a provision for the militia as a call up by the governing authorities in case of attack. Colorado does have such a provision which actually solidifies the right of the people to bear arms more emphatically than our Bill of Rights. In the early 90’s the militia grew to a massive company nation wide. ** This primarily after the “president” presided over the most vile and massive murders of American citizens in Waco, Texas. Sadly the "media’ cheered on the constant harassment using the military, law enforcement, AFT, FBI and others to threaten them and suggesting daily “they had it coming.” I believe this was the ignition for the largest militia movement since the beginning of the nation…interesting footnote: the Texas Rangers were told to “stand down”… The militia is made up any American citizen male of 16 years or older, to be called upon by the states governor in time of threat…(now would probably include women as well.)
@Denise_J – I’m not sure of your crime stats or what you are counting. FBI violent crime rates list DC as #1, sure, but after that it’s Alaska, NM, Tenn, Arkansas, Arizona, Missouri, South Carolina, South Dakota, Mich (the first with a D governor but R legislature), Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, Alabama, then Texas. At #21, we finally get to our first D-run state, California. The eight lowest are all D-run as well. Even if you only count “gun violence,” the top 10 list is pretty similar. Same with “gun deaths.” Am I missing something?
You also need to look at the cities. Where one large Democratically controlled city in a “Red” state completely changes the stats. No one would rationally deny that Chicago, DC, and many other D cities have high crime rates.
And Illinois/Chicago is a great example. A tremendously high % of the violent crime in the state happens in Chicagoland, but Illinois is a pretty big state, physically, with a lot of area that’s totally different from Chicago (may as well be Iowa or rural Indiana through most of the state) which makes the state’s stats fairly different from the city’s.
Anybody correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m seeing a statewide violent crime rate of about 400 for Illinois, and a rate of about 1,000 for Chicago.
This would seem to explain also why D.C. is so high on the list (also around 1,000), it’s small so it doesn’t have the different, expansive rural areas to pull down the average)
Edit: And for Cali, as an example, around 400 for the state, but, for example, Oakland I’m seeing about 1,200. CA also has rural areas that are expansive and different from the cities that are “leading the way”
The first ones were from Bill Whittles "Number one with a bullet about 9 years ago. I’ve seen different stats depending on which agency I’ve gone to. The one fact that is pretty consistent is the democrat states by and large have the worst records for violent crime. Alaska has been number one for some time. In the last 4-5 years New Mexico was second only to Alaska for violent crime. Very possible the stats can vary depending on what agency is reporting them.**Kind of like the different stations as you watch in ‘news’ may have different stats on the same story.
But I think we can safely agree that democrat states have the worst crime…by design.
Sorry, @Denise_J – I think the evidence is against you. If you look at any of the sources that I or @Nathan57 list, the states with the worst crime are mostly R-led and the ones with the best rates are mostly D-led. I’m not sure why you point to Alaska to support your argument – its governor and 1 1/2 houses of the legislature are red.
I don’t know what you mean by “by design.” I’ve lived in red, purple, and blue states, and have found mostly decent, patriotic, thoughtful people in all. There are different approaches to government, sure, but I can’t imagine anyone wanting to lead a state to more violence intentionally.
Absolutely. Crime is endemic to big cities and pro-crime, pro-poverty govt policies (that’s mostly domain of D). Also do not discount effects of illegal immigration, which comes with cartel infestation, and artificially increases crime in TX, NM, AZ and several other states. Again, thanks to D.
Virtually every site I’ve gone to including the very left news in Albuquerque has put Alaska first in violent crime. There is more than one site that provides crime statistics. I’ve also gone to the National Crime Stats website. If you want to think I’m wrong, fine, that’s your choice. I don’t claim to be an expert but I have been looking at these stats for over 10 years,. About 5-6 years ago El Paso was in the top 5 for safest states. My brother has lived there 20 years and verified it himself. The NRA also listed them as in the top 5. Contest it if you please.
As I said before, there are multiple sights and agencies who report state crime statistics.
Take your pick. They aren’t all going to say the same thing.
Apparently I’m going to be “proven” wrong come hell or high water. I stand by what I said.
One factor that also comes into play is that these statistics also change not only from year to year in the states but in a matter of months. Statistics aren’t set in concrete. Oddly enough they vary from year to year and even months. So what ever is “out there” is going to change. Alaska, sadly, has not.