Posted on 05/13/2019 12:17:07 PM PDT by Zirondelle
Still married so a beneficiary. Entitled or not is your question.
When someone commits such a horrible crime they always end up hurting innocents.
He hurt the little girl he molested.
He hurt his wife with the punishment he brought down upon himself.
He hurt the little girls mother.
Taxpayer money should not go to pedophiles. It is a shame that your innocent sister was relying on the income of a pedophile - but unfortunately life isn’t fair. Just ask the little girl in this case.
“At any rate, the “sister” seems to be a victim.”
She is a victim of her husband, nobody else.
When a man goes to prison for pedophilia do we taxpayers have an obligation to ensure his spouse does not lose her house because she no longer has sufficient income?
That’s a good question. If he’s FERS, about all they could withhold would be the annuity portion.
We would run into similar issues in the military when we would court martial somebody and the result was loss of all pay and allowances. Sometimes the family suffered more than the perp, but those were the rules.
We tried to get creative once and carve out an allowance for the family, but I don’t know if that withstood legal scrutiny.
It sounds harsh, but that’s his pension... not hers.
“Ex-post facto laws are a conservative value?”
There are still a large number of conservatives on this forum, fortunately.
Of course this law will get thrown out in court for the reason you stated.
Then a bunch of members of this forum will complain that the judge is a “black robed tyrant” (which often is the case but not EVERY case).
Why is she still married to him?! No excuse for anyone to stay married to a sexual predator. Entitled? I guess, to share the guilt.
Matter of fact, why wait? Run over there and burn her house down!
Serves her right for marrying a bum, right.
After all, it's what Jesus would do.
I doubt seriously it can be retroactive even if passed & signed today.
Then she should go to her church and ask for relief.
Maybe your sister can ask the little girl that was molested by your brother in law for some money.
Has she tried that yet?
Agreed, but that's not my point. My point was, if the law allowed for him to be paid his pension even with the conviction, then any change that impacts him now is ex-post facto.
I don't like that they could collect prior, but that's apparently what the law allowed for.
I agree it should be changed.
What I'm wondering is why he's getting anything now. Apparently a felony conviction doesn't already preclude payment. If that's the case, why is this law just for child molesters, and not all felons getting federal pension?
What's being talked about here is not justice, its revenge.
I wonder when ex-post facto laws kick on or allowing this man another go at defense because his sentencing guideline has been changed post conviction. Nice sister who's going to benefit from her husband retirement sure didn't seem so supportive. I don't know any facts or issues with the criminal trial so I've no feeling whether he's guilty or not. Only the facts count. Not opinions of Sister In-Law's.
I've seen so many men burned by women after falsely accusing them of domestic violence that I view charges like this in this situation pretty cynical.
I'm not assuming he's guilty or not guilty. What I do assume is that your sister is right. This type of punishment (revoking all or part of federal tax dollars)doesn't sit well with me and is prejudicial punishment that doesn't fit the crime.
Just remember this: Poorly written laws quickly become tools of oppressions.
Because then all the jailed former congress critters would have to give up their pensions. (only being slightly sarcastic here... that's actually a good question.)
No names.....no dates.....no locations......
Just a story about a meanie Republican.
Huh.
It’s almost like you’re spreading Democrat propaganda.
Yes, an amendment to the bill should be offered, providing exceptions for “the beneficiaries” of a pedophile’s pensions (or other benefits). It can easily be promoted as not putting the sins of the guilty party off on their beneficiaries.
Then. She would get the death benefits.
I think it is pretty clear they are still married.
It says that they “don’t condone what her husband is convicted of”. All present tense. And it is all about her getting his retirement.
Your sister may not be a pedophile, but she hopes to be getting money for being married to a convicted pedophile...I can feel for her (and the law hasn’t passed yet so you don’t know the final format/possible exceptions) but I can also see the point of not paying federal dollars to an incarcerated felon (of any kind).
This is the kind of thing where if it is happening to someone else, we get 99% approval...but when it lands on one’s own doorstep, it’s “unconscionable”.
Prayers up for your sister.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.