Should any crime make a person ineligible for government benefits?

[dsc]

There was a recent thread here that raised money for a man who committed a crime who is currently applying for disability benefits. In fairness, several valid issues were raised in that thread. The OP surely could have been more forthcoming about the history of the person for whom he had posted the thread. And surely people have every right to spend their own money in whatever way they wish. That said, I admit to be disturbed by those who said the fundraising campaign shouldn't have been permitted at all. He apparently paid his debt to society. Once that is done, I think he should be treated the same as other people. Meaning people who choose should be able to support him via DU and our government, if he qualifies he should get disability. If we say this crime is disqualifying then what other crimes should be?

[Malraiders]

1. No. When the justice system is so crooked that cops are

charged with lesserr crimes than the common man, then all government benefits should be intact for all crimes committed.

[uppityperson]

2. To briefly answer your question, of course not. Crimes should not make people ineligible.

[Historic NY]

3. So what your really saying is he is a grifter...

that fooled people here and trying to do the same to get disability benefits.

[dsc]

6. If he can fool disability he would be a hell of a grifter

I have two relatives on it and trust me they make it very, very, very hard to get on it.

[Lee-Lee]

18. Seems like it's a mixed bag- I have seen more than a few grifters on SSDI

Work in a field like law enforcement and you see a lot and end up noticing it more even after.

It's messed up because to try and keep out the scammers they put up barriers that just make it hard for those who need it. The scammers don't care, they are working under the table or using petty crime to keep themselves housed and fed while they keep applying and appealing until they get in, and the people who really need it suffer during the delays.

But believe me, there are plenty of people scamming SSDI who could work or who do work off the books.

[NBachers]

4. Should any crime make a person ineligible to vote?

[tazkcmo]

5. No.

You might, maybe, even possibly cajole me into a denial of basic living standards for child molesters, though. Really though, no. People are imperfect and to sentence a person to a slow death by poverty, homelessness and starvation says more about the executioner than the offender. Deep down in my heart, I know even the child molester must be fed.

[dsc]

7. if you say one crime, such as child molesting

then someone else will say, maybe rape, or terrorism, or murder. I don't see where it would stop.

[tazkcmo]

9. You are right.

As for the extreme case of a child molester, he must be fed and housed and deep down I know this. I don't have to like it though! Yes, you are correct. Sometimes doing the right thing is a bitter pill, yes?

[Skidmore]

26. So you support a de factor death sentence for anyone

committing those crimes. Let's be honest here. What do you do with the living person who committed those crimes if you would deny the basic needs for survival?

[dsc]

28. ah that would be a no

I would suggest rereading.

[Texasgal]

8. No.

Disability should be separate from crime if he is eligible.

Fund raising is another issue all together.

[daredtowork]

10. This is why we need to go to a system of mincome

As long as there is means-testing, there will always be scab-picking around the edges to see who "deserves" to be on it. But when you take people off it, the ramification is those people have no resources to live in. If they are lucky they have some relatives to fall back on. If they are clever they manage to eke out survival as panhandlers and camp in the street while bewildered cities try to figure out how to make them go away by criminalizing their existence.

The fact is that once people are *here*, they have to survive somehow. The basic terms of survival shouldn't be leverage over morals. Even people who have committed murder are getting food and shelter in prison: why are people who have committed lesser "crimes" of making bad financial decisions being treated worse by being rendered homeless? Yet the situation we have now is that some people and some groups CAN be deprived of resources - and therefore politics WILL try to deprive them. At this time, the GOP is trying to play the young against the old to put an end to Social Security.

The only way to put a stop to this constant questioning of who is deserving or not is to give EVERYONE the money. If someone is too rich to benefit from it, recapture it through taxes. It's that simple.

[hifiguy]

11. No.

A VERY repuke idea - unjust and rotten to its core.

[ScreamingMeemie]

12. Because I believe prison/jail/sentences are for punishment and rehabilitation,

my answer is no. No crime should disqualify a person from benefits. I will go a step further to reiterate my stance that people are free to give money to whomever they wish and sometimes, the comments posted say more about the commenter than about the person they are directed toward. I've been astounded lately, and I returned from a somewhat long hiatus to respond as such to your post.

I hope you are doing well. Back in my cave I go.

[Nye Bevan]

13. No. Punishment for crimes should be completely separate from benefit eligibility. (nt)

[PowerToThePeople]

14. No, that is a repuke dream. eom

[One_Life_To_Give]

15. Some benefits perhaps

Is the former Speaker of the Legislature entitled to his/her pension after conviction of crimes committed in and while holding said office?

On August 30, 2012, the Massachusetts Retirement Board voted 5 to 0 to revoke DiMasi's $60,142-a-year pension.[26] His pension had been suspended since September 2011.

Background
On June 2, 2009, DiMasi and three others were indicted on charges that included conspiracy, honest services fraud, mail fraud, aiding and abetting, and wire fraud.[20] On June 15, 2011, DiMasi was convicted on seven of the nine charges. [22][27]

It seems bad enough that we over payed for services because of his actions. Now should we also be required to continue making payments over and above basic subsistence, if necessary? Would a private employer be required to honor a pension for someone convicted of embezzlement? Seems to me you can't make a simple rule, there are complexities that present exceptions.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. If someone deliberately seeks to harm or defraud people/society I would think they forfeit

any right to claim against those people/society

[Orrex]

17. If they're convicted on child porn charges, they can ask DU for a handout.

[Codeine]

19. No, but if you come a-begging on DU

for a pedophile/kiddy porn fan it behooves one to disclose that fact. The fact that this guy got thousands while TTW is on the street says something unsavory about our giving patterns here.

[MineralMan]

20. I think people should do their own research and make

decisions based on their own thinking. As for government programs, those should be applied on an equal basis to everyone who qualifies, according to the regulations that apply to those programs.

In one case, it is giving according to personal opinion. In the other, it is government agencies and their regulations. There is no connection between the two types of support.

[Alkene]

21. Yes.

The Cheney-Bush war crimes, TARP-related crimes, Trump's hair, etc.

[dsc]

25. I agree with you on that

but banning a post to help his here isn't all that different from saying the government shouldn't. In both cases it is our money.

[yardwork]

32. It's completely different.

And nobody has been banned, as far as I know.

[Codeine]

33. The only posts "banned" were

those that pointed out that the solicitation for cash was meant to aid a person convicted of possessing child pornography and that such a request, presented without full disclosure, was disturbing. I'd not choose to donate to such a person, all things being equal.

When several posters made this point they found their posts hidden by juries. I though it was a bit rich that asking money for such a person is peachy but informing the community about his status brings out the pitchforks.

[romanic]

23. I have no idea what this is about

But I'll answer the question.

If someone commited petty crimes like shoplifting and speeding than of course not. Robbery and drug-related offenses, it depends on that person's criminal history and/or the severity of those crimes. Crimes that involved murder, rape, etc; then yes I would make them ineligible for any kind of benefits except for the most basic (I'm assuming criminals in prison have some kind of healthcare).

[Cal Carpenter]

24. No. There is no excuse for second-class status

when it comes to basic needs and rights, particularly when our justice system is so lopsided in terms of race and class.

Folks who may or may not do the crime will do their time, and it is enough of a challenge to assimilate back into life as it is. Making it worse is, at best, a way to increase likelihood of recidivism and disenfranchise people, and at worst it is simply cruel and punitive.

[Quackers]

27. No

Everyone has the right to live. In regards to the thread you're referring to, that gentleman has applied for ssdi, which means he has paid into that and has the same rights as anyone else that is eligible. My issue was with full disclosure in regards to soliciting donations. Imagine the emotional damage that a victim of a sex crime would endure if they were asked to give money to someone in need and then find out that the money went to the person who abused them.

[TheBlackAdder]

29. No. If a person is cut off, they should no longer have to pay into SS, SSDI, or UI.

.


Too many people are targeted and arrested for lame 'crimes,' or crimes of a dubious nature.


This not only relegates them to a 3rd World income status, in most cases. If and when they do get employment, they would then have to pay into a system that offers no benefits. Those prior payments they have made into the system would also be forfeited.


If you are deemed to have paid your debts to society, so be it. Any future punishment is unwarranted.


.

[Sunlei]

30. depends on what the 'charge' and 'conviction' were for. But noone should lose gov. benefits ever.

[Warpy]

31. Stupid idea.

Hungry and desperate people are going to commit more crimes.

If he's disabled, he should get SSD. Period.

Crowdfunding his attempt is something else. I'll leave it to the individual consciences of people who choose to contribute and choose not to contribute and I won't judge either.

[Major Nikon]

34. The "crime" of not registering for selective service makes one ineligible for several benefits

...for life.

Naturally this only affects those born with a penis. Numerous DUers expressed they were perfectly OK with that.