Convicted fellon gets 55 grand a year pension (for 19 years) - Right or Wrong?

A veteran Chicago fire lieutenant who is serving a lengthy prison sentence for beating his second wife to death has been receiving a pension check from the city that has amounted to $840,000 since his incarceration, MyFoxChicago.com reported.

www.foxnews.com...

What do you think? I agree with this man's daughter.. he deserves and should keep his pension. His crime had nothing to do with his retirement from a long service with the fire dept.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


While horrid beating his wife to death didnt have anything to do with his job.

If he was stealing from till or committing a crime against the department or town or state if the state governs the fire fighters then sure, cut his pension out but his crime was independent of the job so I dont think it should be cut.

One has nothing to do with the other.

I agree as well, he earned it through years of working and risking his life for others.

The murder is a horse of a different color.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Sure the daughter wants the checks to continue (she is from his first marriage)...she reaps a lot of the benefits...she gets money from every check...and when her Father dies...she will get all that money.

However the son whose Mother he murdered...gets nothing.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


To be honest, while his crime is not mutually exclusive to the work he did as a fireman, his pension should pay off his incarceration. Why have the taxpayer foot the bill, when the taxpayer is already paying his pension? (This man is very expensive to the public).

I would have to agree here that though his crime was brutal, and quite disturbing, he earned his pension.

That being said, I wish the title was changed to "Incarcerated" Felon instead of "Convicted" Felon. I say this speaking up for Convicted Felons everywhere who are decent people that have paid their dues to society, but never lose the title.

It was summed up for me when I was watching some cop show the other day where a guy told a cop that he was an Ex-felon, the cop laughed and said there is no such thing. Once a felon, always a felon, never mind the fact that everything is becoming a felony.

Just my two cents.

Boba

His pension was intended to reward him for his service and pay for his survival after finishing his duty on the job. So, use it for that- deduct his cost of living from it and send the rest to his daughter since she has power of attorney.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


Dear JohnPhoenix,

S&F. I have been reading similar articles both here and in Europe. The articles are always about public pensions and never is the same question raised regarding private pensions, 401ks or social security. If someone has a security clearance and they violate it, they can be denied their pension. This move that some are promoting would be an eternal threat to those who do not have security clearances and did not agree to such a thing. You will never know what has gone on in the government if retirees felt afraid to speak out.

Public pensions are not a gift, they are part of a compensation package just like your wage is. In the United States, if you get a public pension, it is very likely you will either get no or a very limited social security package even if you have also contributed to social security. So, why is this being discussed nationwide and in Europe now? The same reason that the military is practicing to deal with civil disturbances is my guess.

The Guardian - Pentagon bracing for public dissent over climate and energy shocks. This quote is from the article "Also in 2010, the Pentagon ran war games to explore the implications of "large scale economic breakdown" in the US impacting on food supplies and other essential services, as well as how to maintain "domestic order amid civil unrest."

You may have read an article recently where the pentagon said that in the case of certain local emergencies they can take over control without the approval or request of local authorities. What happens if local authorities refuse to go along, they lose their pensions and are forced to work without pay in whatever manner the government chooses. In California there is a program called the 'Disaster Service Worker" program, it requires all government employees, state and local, to take a loyalty oath. You might want to check it out.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


He did a really bad thing but it does not have anything to do with his work, if he worked he deserves his pension.

Originally posted by Jason88
reply to post by JohnPhoenix

 

To be honest, while his crime is not mutually exclusive to the work he did as a fireman, his pension should pay off his incarceration. Why have the taxpayer foot the bill, when the taxpayer is already paying his pension? (This man is very expensive to the public).

That doesn't bother me. Money is Not real. I don't use it except for emergencies. I no longer pay taxes because I purposefully do not make enough.

I understand what your saying though.. the thing is you'd have to get some laws changed for that. As it is the pension money is protected.. no one else can legally get it, not the jail, not the dead wife's son. I'd agree to garnishing this 55 K a year to pay for his incarceration but not take all of it.. I wonder how much it cost the state for him each year.. wouldn't that be interesting to know.

Originally posted by abecedarian
His pension was intended to reward him for his service and pay for his survival after finishing his duty on the job. So, use it for that- deduct his cost of living from it and send the rest to his daughter since she has power of attorney.

edit on 6/19/2013 by abecedarian because: (no reason given)

Unless I'm mistaken, inmates are required to work in prison shops as a form of payment for their keep. If that's the case, nothing should be taken from his pension as payment for his keep unless he's is given the right not to work.

But there is something to be said for taking his pension to repay the family of the victim for their loss, such as child support, should the courts determine it.

Interesting subject.

Originally posted by Bobaganoosh
I would have to agree here that though his crime was brutal, and quite disturbing, he earned his pension.

That being said, I wish the title was changed to "Incarcerated" Felon instead of "Convicted" Felon. I say this speaking up for Convicted Felons everywhere who are decent people that have paid their dues to society, but never lose the title.

It was summed up for me when I was watching some cop show the other day where a guy told a cop that he was an Ex-felon, the cop laughed and said there is no such thing. Once a felon, always a felon, never mind the fact that everything is becoming a felony.

Boba

Interesting. My 19 year old step son is a felon. He's currently serving a 2 year probation after sitting in jail for 3 months for a bag of weed.

I own guns. I have to legally lock my room up with a key because the guns make it off limits for him. He's a decent enough kid that just made some bad decisions. He gets a visit from his PO once a month. I can't wait till this is over because it's like I have to walk on eggshells in my own home. I have to be very careful of the parties I have with my friends.

Anyway, I stuck with "Convicted" because the article calls it that. My step son will never lose that Felon title. Hopefully it will be a good thing.. a reminder for him to stay out of trouble.

reply to post by JohnPhoenix


I'm sure your son regrets his actions.

I understand the T&C's and that is why I "wished" the title was different instead of being a demanding prick..

I too have family with the title of "Felon". It is similar to your family's experience. I just despise the word, because that particular title lumps them all into the same category as murderers, child molesters, thugs, and all sorts of nefarious types.

People need to defend each other over the stigma. There are plenty of cases where the "felon" is in fact the victim in a seemingly victimless crime. These people are victims of a biased system.

We have all committed felonies in our lives, knowingly or otherwise.

I'm done... I won't detract from the topic any further.

Boba

Regardless of his crime, it's his money. He earned that money and paid into his pension. Why should the government keep it?

I can see a case being made for the step son, who lost his mother, to be compensated out of that pension, though I agree its his money and exactly what precedent are others on this thread proposing. Go to jail, and often its not your fault, its the governments corruption, and lose everything you have....!!!! And your families assets.

It's his pension, he earned it on the job. It's a completely separate issue from the murder.

OJ Simpson receives his NFL pension while in jail, $28K a year. The Goldman family tried to get it in the civil suit but were denied. Many states have laws making pensions immune from creditors or lawsuits.