Uniform Advance Directives Form For - Attorney General: Fill & Download for Free

Q. Can America sentence young non-violent people to military basic training and advanced skilled training instead of a prison sentence?A. Correctional boot camps were the rage in the US in the 1980’s and 1990′s. Meta-analysis conclusively showed no improvement in recidivism, or cost savings. Two papers included were reviews of US experience (vengeful justice) as models/cautionary tales for Australia and the United Kingdom.Correctional boot camps (United Kingdom)What is the focus of the intervention?Boot camps are programmes for juvenile or adult offenders as an alternative to punishments such as prison or probation. They are modelled on military boot camps and involve activities such as drills, ceremony and physical training. Strict daily schedules are followed, and punishments for misbehaviour often involve physical activities like push-ups.Programmes differ based on content and delivery of physical and therapeutic aspects, which could include education, substance abuse treatment and improvement of cognitive skills.This narrative summarises the findings of three systematic reviews. Review 1 was based on 32 studies, Review 2 was based on 44 studies and Review 3 was based on 16 studies.The conclusions on effect size are taken from Review 1 only.All boot camp studies included in the reviews were conducted in the USA.EFFECTHow effective is it?There is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime.In Review 1, while individual studies found both statistically significant positive and negative effects on crime, the overall analysis showed that boot camps had no overall effect on rates of re-offending by participants. This result was consistent across all three reviews.How strong is the evidence?The overall evidence is taken from Review 1 (based on a meta-analysis of 32 studies).The review was sufficiently systematic that most forms of bias that could influence the study conclusions can be ruled out.It had a well-designed search strategy, included unpublished literature and risks of bias by the reviewers were minimised.However, biases remain within the primary studies, including the difficulties of comparing boot camps to one another due to differences in treatments, the use of different outcome measures by researchers, and the problem of drop-out rates and how to take these into consideration when calculating effect sizes.MECHANISMHow does it work?The authors of Review 2 provided the most comprehensive attempt at explaining how boot camps work to reduce reoffending.By ensuring strict discipline and demanding physical exercise and labour, participants are encouraged to behave respectfully and obediently, hopefully making them more likely to comply with rules or laws upon programme completion.Adherence to daily routines and interactions with camp staff should teach participants skills to help them control their behaviour.Prosocial behaviours such as respect are also taught and practiced, with close supervision allowing positive behaviours to be reinforced and negative behaviours punished immediately.Review 3 also mentioned increasing self-esteem and promoting physical fitness as life skills.MODERATORSIn which contexts does it work best?The reviews noted a number of potential moderators, including offender characteristics (age and gender), programme characteristics (focus on rehabilitative or physical elements), treatments (drug treatment, vocational education and aftercare components), whether the programme was voluntary or mandated, and the presence of counselling sessions as part of the programme.None of the three reviews explained why or how these contextual differences might influence the outcome.Review 1 found that participants in boot camps with a strong therapeutic component including treatments such as education, drug treatment and counselling had lower rates of reoffending than those in camps with a stronger focus on physical elements.They also found that juvenile boot camps without a counselling component had a statistically significant negative effect upon re-offending rates of participants.Review 2 found that participants in voluntary boot camps had reduced rates of recidivism compared to mandatory boot camps. Review 2 also discovered that voluntary boot camps for young people significantly reduced the participants’ odds of recidivism (based on only 3 primary studies).While no moderator analysis was conducted on race, review 3 noted that up to 80% of boot camp participants were ethnic minority youths, despite boot camps being originally designed for white, working class participants.IMPLEMENTATIONWhat can be said about implementing this initiative?Boot camps are structured programmes, which generally last between 90 and 180 days.There is a graduation ceremony attended by family and friends for those who successfully complete the programme.Participants are housed in dormitories resembling military barracks, are placed in squads or platoons, and wear uniforms. Programme staff function as drill instructors and are often addressed by military titles. Punishment for misbehaviour is immediate, and usually takes the form of physical activities such as push ups.All three reviews note that studies evaluating boot camps with a strong therapeutic element seemed to have a higher chance of a successful outcome than those with a weaker or no therapeutic focus. Review 3 noted that programmes vary widely in the application and duration of therapeutic elements. Review 2 suggested that aftercare services with therapeutic content are important, and therefore, should not be short term in duration.ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONSHow much might it cost?While none of the reviews conducted a full cost benefit analysis, some mention of costs was reported in the primary studies.Review 2 cited one study, which found that in 1997, the cost per boot camp participant was $31,752 less per year in California, compared to the cost of incarceration. Another study reported a similar comparison and found that in 2001 boot camps were $78,700 cheaper than prison per participant per year. Review 3 stated that the Alabama boot camp cost a total of between $779,229 and $1,676,880 less than participants being in prison. Three studies within Review 3 found that boot camps were cheaper than prison, while four studies found no difference.General considerations• Boot camps differ substantially in content – some camps focus on physical training and hard labour, while others emphasise delivering therapeutic programming such as academic education, drug treatment or cognitive skills.• Boot camps with an evidence-based therapeutic focus see the largest reductions in recidivism amongst participants.SummaryThere is some evidence that the intervention has either increased or reduced crime, but overall the intervention has not had a statistically significant effect on crime. Those boot camps that have seen the greatest reduction in participant recidivism, especially with juvenile populations, have focused upon therapeutic elements within the programmes.Ratings for Individual ReviewsResourcesReview 1: Wilson, D.B., MacKenzie, D.L., Mitchell, F.N. (2003) 'Effects of correctional boot camps on offending' Campbell Systematic Reviews 2003:1, DOI:10.4073/ csr.2003.1Review 2: Meade, B. and Steiner, B. (2010) 'The total effects of boot camps that house juveniles: A systematic review of the evidence', Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 841-853Review 3: Riphagen, R. C. (2010) 'Effectiveness of Male Juvenile Boot Camps in the United States: A Critical Review of the Literature', Doctoral Dissertation, Azusa Pacific University.Uploaded 04/06/15Boot camps a poor fit for juvenile justice (Australia)October 24, 2012 2.36pm AEDT Robyn Lincoln Assistant Professor, Criminology, Bond UniversityQueensland unveils tenders for two new boot camp programs for young offenders.The Queensland Attorney-General, Jarrod Bleijie, has authorised a tender process for the operation of two youth boot camps. The camps, aimed at 13 to 17 year olds, are to be trialled in Cairns and on the Gold Coast for a two-year period. The camp in the north of the state is an intensive diversion program for “sentenced” juveniles, while that in the south-east corner is an early intervention scheme for “at risk” youth.As with all matters of justice, Queensland is not alone in proffering boot camps as the “answer to youth crime”. The Brumby Government proposed school-based camps for Victoria in 2010, and both the Northern Territory and Western Australia have flirted with such programs as early as the 1980s.In the wake of calls for the operation of boot camps to solve problems of youth crime, it is instructive to examine what they are, what inspires them and what the research evidence reveals about their outcomes.The shape and size of boot campsThere was a proliferation of boot camps in the USA in the 1980s and 1990s, where millions of dollars were diverted to their operations.They come under the guise of wilderness, bush, work, motivational and challenge camps. Some are attached to schools or prisons and many are geared toward adult offenders, but a significant proportion are aimed at “recalcitrant youth”, some set up specifically for females.While the camp programs vary, the common features of these residential programs are that they are established on militaristic lines with an emphasis on deference to authority, conformity, intimidation, isolation, and concentrated physical training.The tender documents for the proposed Queensland camps appear no different. The program intends to instill “discipline and respect”, ensures “direct consequences for offending” and entails considerable “supervision”.Moral foundationsThe very concept of a boot camp is based on the notion of individual responsibility for crime and anti-social behaviour. It is about failure of parents or families and ultimately of the young people who find themselves in trouble with the law.The principles revolve around shock treatment, power and control, and disciplinarian techniques. To that end they exemplify the “get tough” politicisation of crime, a misplaced view that we have the capacity to correctly identify threat and risk. A misguided belief in the effectiveness of the punitive approaches of past centuries.This is what has been labelled by some as “vengeance justice”. For even though these programs purport to “address the causes of crime”, they are mean-spirited and sheet the blame for crime solely at the individual level.Queensland Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie addresses the press. AAP/Dave HuntEvaluating boot campsDuring the 1990s in particular and in the USA specifically, a number of studies were conducted into the effectiveness of boot camps. Similar evidence emerged from the UK about a range of “short sharp shock” treatment regimes.All of this empirical work shows quite clearly that there is no benefit to boot camps. Whether the measures are re-offending rates or whether it is centred around cost-effectiveness — there is little to show that boot camps offer a beneficial alternative.Of course given the variety of boot camp philosophies and the practices of their daily regimes some caution needs to be exercised about the research evidence. In addition, trying to conduct any truly robust research is difficult and rarely are quasi-experimental designs used (that is, random allocation of youth to boot camp versus a range of other interventions that are then followed up in the long term).Yet even in studies where there were some differences in outcomes, they were marginal or negligible and could often be sheeted home to the backgrounds of the offenders (age, sex, previous convictions) rather than any militaristic-style intervention they had undergone.Of most significance is that some studies showed that there was potential for greater effectiveness when the boot camp included some kind of “treatment” option which flies in the face of the fundamental philosophy of such camps.In the last decade more sophisticated research has emerged including meta-analyses of multiples studies. However the findings remain, that there were no significant differences on re-offending measures between those who attend a correctional boot camp and those who did not.Even when the “softer” style of boot camps were evaluated there were no differences on recidivism. Similarly studies that have undertaken longer term follow-ups show no benefit. In research where a cost-saving has been identified this was only because offenders spent slightly less time in prison. Finally, one evaluation of a school-based camp again found no differences on re-offending but participants displayed “favourable” views of the program.Does the boot fit?Thus several decades of evaluations of boot camps has demonstrated quite conclusively that they are not effective in reducing recidivism and have marginal impact on cost-savings.The problem with these “shock and awe” tactics is that they are centred around individual responsibility. This shows a fundamental lack of appreciation of the “causes” of crime — demographic changes, deployment of police, reform to criminal codes, urban design, extended surveillance, tougher supervision orders.Most of all it signals a vengeful justice system. Let’s face it, boot camps are founded on fear and terror.Return to the Crime Reduction ToolkitJuvenile Boot Campshttps://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/197018.pdfConclusions: Correctional practitioners and planners might learn from boot camps’ failure to reduce recidivism or prison populations by considering the following:■ Building reintegration into the community into an inmate’s individual program and reentry plans may improve the likelihood he or she will not commit a new offense.■ Programs that offered substantial discounts in time served to those who completed boot camps and that chose candidates sentenced to serve longer terms were the most successful in reducing prison populations.■ Chances of reducing recidivism increased when boot camp programs lasted longer and offered more intensive treatment and post release supervision, activities that may conflict with the goal of reducing population. Efforts to achieve multiple goals are likely the overall cause of boot camps’ conflicting results.Program designers are urged to determine which options are best for their jurisdictions; for example, they may consider whether to implement more treatment programs or move inmates out of the system more rapidly. These decisions affect costs, as prison bed-space savings go up or down. Other correctional programs are adopting some of the important elements of boot camps—for example, carefully structured programs that reduce idleness—to increase safety and improve conditions of confinement for younger offenders.20 However, in recent years, some jurisdictions facing rising costs have responded by cutting programs.One lesson for policymakers from 10 years of boot camp research is that curtailing programs may lead to increased violence, misconduct, and serious management problems.Boot Camp Justice for Juvenile OffendersAfter the crime rate for those under the age of 17 doubled in a five year period, Camp Stop, a military-style boot camp, was opened. This program aims to deal with juvenile offenders and steer them away from a life of crime. Fourteen-year-old Norton G. explains why he was incarcerated. Sgt. Major Richard Hurt believes boot camp can make a positive difference in kids’ lives. While life is harsh at Camp Stop, it cannot compare with life in Georgia prisons in the 1930s. Scenes from the movie I Am a Fugitive from a Chain Gang, based on a book about Georgia prisons, show how the mistreatment of prisoners led to prison reforms.Criminal Justice and the Juvenilehttp://file:///C:/Users/RAD/Downloads/1978-6398-2-PB%20(1).pdfhttps://www.fdle.state.fl.us/FCJEI/Programs/SLP/Documents/Full-Text/Bobbitt-thomas-paper.aspx

It was about as much of a landslide as it was possible to be in the modern age. In fact, it was by far the most decisive victory in the past 5 contests we’ve had.What I consider the “modern” age of politics began in 2000.[1][1][1][1] [2][2][2][2]Things have changed some since this election. Virginia, Nevada, and Colorado have moved into the blue camp, for instance. Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina are also moving leftwards. At the same time, the Midwest is moving rightwards. But this is about as far back in time as you can go without the electoral map looking very foreign.For comparison, let’s look at 96, 92, and 88.[3][3][3][3] [4][4][4][4] [5][5][5][5]A Democrat winning West Virginia, Kentucky, Arkansas, and Louisiana? That sounds like science fiction at this point.Same as before, except that Georgia and Montana are blue. Now, there was possibly the effect of Ross Perot in this election, but that’s very controversial. Perot by 1996 and 2000 was definitely on the right. But in 1992, the Democrats were enough of a centrist party that Perot got votes equally from the left and right. Be that as it may, you’d never get a map like this in our elections.88 is even weirder. It was the last landslide. Basically, this can’t happen anymore. And the reason it can’t is because we live in a very different world:It’s often said that Democrats lost the Deep South over the issue of civil rights. That’s not entirely incorrect, but it’s a shortcut. The story is much more complicated and took more than a generation to play itself out. The Democratic Party for most of the 20th century was a union of the White South and the pro-labor, pro-civil-rights North. Even that is an oversimplication. Things weren’t that neat. There were plenty of pro-civil-rights liberals in the Republican Party as well. But for our purposes here, suffice it to say that the Democratic Party was a very big tent party, with room enough for Southern segregationists, labor liberals, and black voters in the north.I should mention here that Black voters started the 20th century as Republicans—this was the party that had abolished slavery and championed the Black suffrage—but slowly moved out of that party as Black voters lost the right to vote in the South and Northern black voters found that:The Democratic Party in the North was happy to push for their rights in exchange for their pro-labor votes.The Republican Party was dominated by Big Business, and had long given up its advocacy for Black rights.The push for Black civil rights, which started in the first half of the 20th century, created an ideological and geographical fault line through the Democratic Party. It opened the gate for white Southerners, who were pro-segregation and anti-civil-rights, to feel really alienated from the national Democratic Party.This is what things looked like classically. You see the strength of the Democratic Party in the states of the Old Confederacy, even in an otherwise bad election year.[6][6][6][6]Hoover won in 1928, confining Democrats again largely to the Old South. But then the Great Depression hit, and Democrats swept almost everything for 8 years. And even after that Roosevelt continued to be hugely popular. By 1944, this is what things looked like, after he had lost a lot of ground:[7][7][7][7]1948 was the first time the South had a big revolt against the national Democratic Party. In July of that year, the Democratic Party adopted a platform that included the following lines:[8][8][8][8]We support the right of free enterprise and the right of all persons to work together in co-operatives and other democratic associations for the purpose of carrying out any proper business operations free from any arbitrary and discriminatory restrictions.The Democratic Party is responsible for the great civil rights gains made in recent years in eliminating unfair and illegal discrimination based on race, creed or color,The Democratic Party commits itself to continuing its efforts to eradicate all racial, religious and economic discrimination.We again state our belief that racial and religious minorities must have the right to live, the right to work, the right to vote, the full and equal protection of the laws, on a basis of equality with all citizens as guaranteed by the Constitution.We highly commend President Harry S. Truman for his courageous stand on the issue of civil rights.We call upon the Congress to support our President in guaranteeing these basic and fundamental American Principles: (1) the right of full and equal political participation; (2) the right to equal opportunity of employment; (3) the right of security of person; (4) and the right of equal treatment in the service and defense of our nation.We pledge ourselves to legislation to admit a minimum of 400,000 displaced persons found eligible for United States citizenship without discrimination as to race or religion. We condemn the undemocratic action of the Republican 80thCongress in passing an inadequate and bigoted bill for this purpose, which law imposes no-American restrictions based on race and religion upon such admissions.We urge immediate statehood for Hawaii and Alaska; immediate determination by the people of Puerto Rico as to their form of government and their ultimate status with respect to the United States; and the maximum degree of local self-government for the Virgin Islands, Guam and Samoa.We recommend to Congress the submission of a constitutional amendment on equal rights for women.We favor the extension of the right of suffrage to the people of the District of Columbia.The Southern Delegates walked out and formed the States' Rights Democratic Party, commonly known as the Dixiecrats, pledged to the preservation of white supremacy and segregation. They nominated, Strom Thurmond, who at the time was the governor of South Carolina.They were hoping to either weaken Truman enough to demonstrate that Democrats needed the segregationist South to win or to deny anyone a majority of the electoral college, which would mean that the House would pick the president. There, they would throw their support to whoever pledged not to interfere with segregation.But to the surprise of almost everyone, Truman managed to win the election, though without the support of a significant portion of the South. It must have looked like a fluke at the time, but it was a harbinger of things to come.[9][9][9][9]The deep South returned to the Democratic fold during the Eisenhower years, but in 1960, Kennedy found that he could not take for granted the support of the South. Again, the issue was civil rights for Blacks. This time, the scheme to deny the nomination to a Democrat consisted in placing unplegded electors on the ballot. Normally, electors are pledged in advance to vote for one candidate or another. 15 such electors won election and voted for Senator Harry F. Byrd, father of the late Robert Byrd. It was not enough to stop Kennedy, but the South, or at least a portion thereof, was starting to mark its independence.[10][10][10][10]Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963, and his Vice President, who had been a Southerner in good standing while Senate Majority Leader, used his remarkable talents to pursue civil rights for Blacks. In so doing, opened the floodgates for the White South to leave what had until then been their party and the party of their ancestors. Lyndon Johnson won a crushing victory in 1964, but it was not with the help of the South.[11][11][11][11]And then there was 1968, one of those years like 1848 where so many changes are happening with various flavors of success and failure in so many countries simultaneously that those of us born after the fact must forever resign ourselves to the fact that we will never be able to fully explain what the hell was going on.For our purposes, suffice it to say that Johnson didn’t run again in 68. The New Hampshire primary showed just how vulnerable he was, and just how hard it would be for him to win the renomination of his party. He was extremely unpopular by then, thanks the the debacle that was the Vietnam war. And Democrats were hopelessly divided.There were those who favored Vice President Hubert Humphrey. He was a liberal, but he had remained loyal to Johnson. This was seen by some as an unforgivable sin.There was Senator Eugene McCarthy, leader of the anti-war faction. He was the man who had nearly defeated Johnson in the New Hampshire primary and thereby demonstrated that Johnson was beatable.There was Bobby Kennedy, Senator, former attorney general and brother of the already apotheosized JFK. He had at first declined to run, but thrown his hat in the race after the New Hampshire primary. He had the support of blacks and Catholics and other people nostalgic for the Kennedy presidency. He was assassinated a few months after entering the primary.There was the Southern faction, implacably opposed to the party’s leftward lurch on civil rights, but with some residual loyalty to the party of their forebears.In the end, it was Humphrey who led the party against Nixon. The White South defected and voted for George Wallace, who was running on a segregationist platform.[12][12][12][12]The results of Wallace’s success were not lost on political strategists. From then on it was clear that, though openly racist positions were an electoral liability, racist dog whistles that allowed a campaign to maintain plausible deniability could be very efficacious.In 1972, there was a landslide. Nixon was a very effective politician. Democrats had nominated George McGovern, whose views were very far to the left of the the median voter. The result was an electoral bloodbath.[13][13][13][13]I will mention in passing that many older Democrats remember this election very well. It left them with an indelible fear of nominating someone too far out of the mainstream. And when they look at politicians like Bernie Sanders, this is what they are reminded of.A result like this was possible because in most of the country, there was an acceptable mainstream outside of which voters wouldn’t go. The proportion of minds who were truly up for grabs was probably around 25–30%. This could create huge shifts within the same decade. Johnson won 61% of the popular vote in 1964. 8 years later, Nixon won 60.7% of the popular vote. We live in an era of hyper-polarization. The vast majority of people already know how they will vote in the next few elections. This wasn’t the case before about 2000.In 1976, with a white Southern evangelical at the helm, Democrats were once again able to rely on the White South.[14][14][14][14]It was the last this would happen. Things were changing. The parties were learning to sort themselves along ideological lines. Conservatives Democrats were moving into the Republican Party. And liberal Republicans—almost entirely Northerners—were slowly starting to vote for Democrats.This process was catalyzed by the battles over civil rights. But it was reinforced by the division over the Vietnam War and the change in sexual mores. Was it more patriotic to support or to oppose the war in Vietnam? Was it more patriotic to serve when drafted or to do one’s best to dodge the draft? Was the pill a useful tool giving women control over their bodies and allowing them to enjoy sex with the same freedom as men? Or was it rather a devilish invention that had led to rampant promiscuity and immorality? Should there be an equal rights amendment, giving women the same rights as men? Or would that open a Pandora's box that would eliminate even natural distinctions between men and women, opening the door to social anarchy? Should abortion be seen as a legal right, enshrined in the constitution? Or was it murder of the most abominable kind, in that it sacrificed the innocent at the altar of licentiousness?On all these issues, there was a self-reinforcing process where an influx of conservatives into the Republican Party would lead the liberals to feel less at home. These liberals would then flow into the Democratic Party, thereby increasing the liberal dominance of the Democratic Party, and making conservatives even more likely to leave. By 1980, there were people being called Reagan Democrats, but there were nothing new. There had also been Nixon Democrats in 72 as well.But the process I have outlined above wasn’t happening symmetrically or uniformly. More people were moving into the Republican Party than were leaving it. The ideological center of gravity of the nation had not been to the left. So when the one party became the party of liberalism, it started losing badly.[15][15][15][15]Allow me another digression here. I want to return to a topic I broached earlier. Imagine that you’re a liberal Democrat born in 1950. By 1988, you would have seen liberalism lose again and again and again at the polls. In the 6 presidential elections from 1968 to 1988, you would have seen the Democrat win only one, and barely, in a year that was favorable only because the cloud of a corrupt bargain had been hanging over Gerald Ford, for having pardoned Nixon. It would not have been an unreasonable conclusion to draw that liberalism could not win.And so, if a centrist Democrat, a governor of a Southern state, came along, with the idea that the way to return to power was to clothe liberalism into the trappings of conservatism, you might be inclined to listen. And if his policy priorities prominently featured a balanced budget and welfare reform, you might see it as the price to pay for readmission into the halls of power.Clintonism worked. Liberals didn’t get everything they wanted. But they got a lot more than they would have gotten if George H. W. Bush had been reelected.Let’s return to the maps that we started with.Bush did not lose because of Ross Perot, though his supporters have preferred this explanation since his defeat. The country was a lot more conservative than it is today, and though by today’s standards, Perot sounds more conservative, in 1992, he was pulling his support equally from left and right. In fact, in June 1992, it was Clinton that he was hurting more: THE 1992 CAMPAIGN: On the Trail; POLL GIVES PEROT A CLEAR LEAD.You cannot call the map above a landslide. Clinton had won less than 43% of the vote. But he was competitive in more parts of the country than Democrats are today.The 1996 maps was slightly different, but looks just as implausible today:Again, this is not a landslide, but both these maps could only happen in a country in which a substantial portion of the electorate was up for grabs.By 2000, states were inexorably tending redwards or bluewards. And by 2008, you had this:[16][16][16][16]The only other state Obama could have won was Missouri, which he lost by less than 4,000 votes. Even if he had won there, it would still not have been a landslide.Even in a year with a historically unpopular president and a cataclysmic financial crisis, McCain still won more than 45% of the popular vote. And large parts of the country were still very, very red. It’s the new normal. The whole country doesn’t move in tandem anymore.Compare the map above to 1988:The vast majority of the country moved in the same direction. And yet, if you compared the popular vote margins, you’ll see that they were pretty similar.This is what polarization looks like in its geographical manifestation. For the foreseeable future, there will be no such thing as a landslide. But, of course, history is not static. What we are noticing is that the Midwest is slowly moving redwards and the sunbelt is slowly moving bluewards. The speed of these movements is never exactly the same. So, while I am fairly certain that at some point, Arizona, Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina will be blue-leaning and Michigan and Wisconsin will be as red as Ohio seems to have become, there will be a cycle of elections where the transition will be complete in one direction but not the other. And during that brief period of time, you might get maps that look like this:But you still won’t see anything like the landslides of old in the elections of the 21st century.Speaking of elections, I have good news! My book was published today! You are more than welcome to elect to get a copy.Footnotes[1] 2000 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[1] 2000 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[1] 2000 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[1] 2000 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[2] 1984 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[2] 1984 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[2] 1984 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[2] 1984 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[3] 1996 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[3] 1996 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[3] 1996 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[3] 1996 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992_United_States_presidential_election[5] 1988 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[5] 1988 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[5] 1988 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[5] 1988 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[6] 1924 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[6] 1924 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[6] 1924 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[6] 1924 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[7] 1944 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[7] 1944 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[7] 1944 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[7] 1944 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[8] 1948 Democratic Party Platform[8] 1948 Democratic Party Platform[8] 1948 Democratic Party Platform[8] 1948 Democratic Party Platform[9] 1948 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[9] 1948 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[9] 1948 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[9] 1948 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[10] 1960 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[10] 1960 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[10] 1960 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[10] 1960 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[11] 1964 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[11] 1964 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[11] 1964 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[11] 1964 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[12] 1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[12] 1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[12] 1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[12] 1968 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[13] 1972 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[13] 1972 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[13] 1972 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[13] 1972 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[14] 1976 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[14] 1976 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[14] 1976 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[14] 1976 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[15] 1980 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[15] 1980 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[15] 1980 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[15] 1980 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[16] 2008 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[16] 2008 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[16] 2008 United States presidential election - Wikipedia[16] 2008 United States presidential election - Wikipedia

These may not be the worst of the bunch, but I will throw in two which are closely related.I was ordered to be the Recorder for a Board. What I did not know was the “Recorder” at a Board hearing is actually the prosecutor. I was handed the Air Police report on a young Airman arrested for drunk driving in a stolen car with several other drunk Airmen.He had been tried in Federal Court as a State Line was involved. There was enough odd circumstances that the Federal Judge gave the guy xx months probation with two conditions: absolutely perfect behavior, and he must NEVER leave the boundaries of the Base during his Probation. If he fulfilled those conditions EXACTLY, the Judge would VOID his conviction.With a matter of a few weeks to go on the Probation (and a marvelously flawless record), our Flaming Anus 2 Star placed this young Airman on a list to deploy to Alaska from our base in Texas. His CO and his 1st Sgt went through channels, but all that did was piss-off the General. The kid then wrote the Judge of his plight. The Judge sent the General a Court Order that the kid stay where he was for that last two wèeks. From there on the thing was over who had the larger penis — General or Judge.So the General ordered the Hearing to determine whether it was “in the best interests of the Air Force” to kick the kid out with an “Other Than Honorable” Discharge.Please note that most civilians do NOT know that “Other Than Honorable” is NOT the same as a Bad Conduct Discharge. If the Board gave the General what he wanted, the poor kid would be effectively unemployable for the rest of his life, PLUS the General would then have legal authority to place him JUST OUTSIDE THE GATE, which of course would mean the Judge would not void his sentence.The kid's Commanding Officer (a Csptain) testified for him and placed all these gory details before the Board. The defense attorney asked what would happen to the Captain. He replied that he had already been told that if he testified, his career would be ruined. Then the 1st Sgt was called and gave identical testimony. Next one of the Chaplains testified — he had also been threatened. Three witnesses came after that with corroberating testimony.From that point on I made every mistake I possibly could to blow the case. I also hoped that some Board Members (in effect, jurors) had a conscience.The verdict came in with exactly what the General wanted.One of the “jurors” was the middle-aged Captain who wrote my OER. (Officer Effectiveness Report — the annual report on which promotions are based). When we returned to our normal duty station I asked him why he voted to screw the kid. His reply was, “I have my career to worry about, so what the General wants, the General gets.” At that point I told him what I thought of his ethics and integrity and I put it rather bluntly. Both of us took off our uniforms and were circling in a boxing mode when the others in the office grabbed both of us and held us down.About a week later, one of our trainers malfunctioned and almost electrocuted a student — he was in the hospital for many days. It was a trainer that I had never used nor been exposed to.(We were training the men who a short time later would sit through the Cuban Missile Crisis with their fingers on the Launch Buttons of our nuclear-armed ICBM force. I take pride in the fact that one out of every three of that group of Missile Officers had been MY students!)An Instructor phoned in sick, and my class had two Instructors — me and a man I deeply respected. The A-Hole Captain described above came running into our classroom, and hauled me out to teach the other class.The academics there were simple, BUT he gave me a DIRECT ORDER to operate the defective trainer. I asked if it had been repaired and he said no. I next pointed out that it was a piece of gear I had never worked on and never Qualified on. He repeated that AN ORDER IS AN ORDER. I repeated that I had never Qualified on that item. He hauled out a training form that said I had Qualified BUT had a forged signature on it. I pointed out it was forged and he repeated his order. I told him this gave me Two Choices — beat the s**t out of him right there or leave the building. I then turned and left while my fellow Instructors began loudly arguing the case.Some Field Graders (Major through Colonel) with wiser heads stepped in.First, there were only two persons who could have forged my signature, and if the Captain's demand that I face a General Court Martial were approved, the forged form and handwriting specimens would probably end up in either the OSI (Air Force lingo for detectives and lab experts) or get shipped to the FBI.Second, the fact that he had given a direct oder in front of witnesses for me to operate that machine while it was still roped off as a Safety Hazard would hurt careers up the line — why would you put a Captain this foolish, with such clouded judgement, in charge of other Instructors?Lastly, I had made it clear (loudly and profanely) that any Court Martial would also consider the Captain's ethics in the Board hearing. Too many people knew too much about that.My OER mysteriously disappeared for some months. He got ordered to fly an aircraft rather aimlessly to G-d Knows Where. I got ordered to Advanced Training in the SM-65F missile, which meant a month or two cooling off period.The young Airman? The last time I talked with his lawyer they were optimistic.Shortly after the time in SM-65F School, I was transfered to a small outfit which established the first USAF training school for the Space Program. I am credited with 13 months Space Operations duty.Note that I did 30+ years Commissioned Service, which is my Active and Reserve duty combined. I worried about that missing OER for years, but Someone watches over 2/Lt and crazy fools.