Should Iowans convicted of felonies forfeit their public pensions?
Related Stories
jail cell
Thomas Hansen will likely lose his freedom for the rest of his life after a jury found him guilty of second-degree murder. But, at least for now, he’ll get to keep the lifetime pension benefits he earned as an Iowa City fire official and as Johnson County’s emergency management director.
Jurors found the 72-year-old guilty of second-degree murder Friday for fatally shooting his longtime companion to death while she was riding a lawn mower in their backyard in Riverside.
Hansen will face a mandatory prison term of 50 years when he is sentenced Feb. 1. The state says inmates cost about $30,000 to house per year.
Yet Hansen’s two taxpayer-funded pensions worth nearly that much will continue, because a criminal conviction has no effect on them under Iowa law.
What do you think of that law? Should Iowans convicted of felonies forfeit their public pensions to help pay for their incarceration?
-u20042.png?1366232523)
Not only should that void a public sector pension, it should drop you from any current or future taxpayer funded handout if you’re not a public sector union employee.
A pension is not a handout; it’s the result of an earned and funded retirement system. I get the impression that anything you don’t have is automaticaly a “handout”.
When it’s my hard earned money paying for this guys pension, then I sure as heck should have a say in it. Oh, sorry I guess since it’s the gov’t taking my money I should just be quiet. So, much for the 1st amendment.
The only thing is, you’ve convinced yourself that you HAVE to pay for it with government, as if you somehow actually have a choice in the private sector. You’re paying for it there too whether you want to or not. All those golden parachutes add up to a lot more in your life than the pensions of a few felons who happened to have IPERS.
Denying people rights afforded to everyone else just because they work for the government makes absolutely no sense.
If you’re going to make someone pay for their incarceration, it better apply to everyone, and not just those who were unfortunate enough to spend time as a public servant and have IPERS.
It could be argued that in this case a forfeiture of his pension may be in order.
I would expect this to come up rarely and when it does come up I would expect that circumstances in other cases may differ greatly. This is not the place for a general rule or law. However, I would want the judge to have the option directing the use of a pension while incarcerated when the circumstances merited such action.
Rich, why are you so willing to cede your basic rights to judges?
“judge to have the option directing the use of a pension while incarcerated when the circumstances merited such action.”
If judges dont need the rule of law, and can take private property when the judge deem it proper, we no longer have rule of law, Just rule. And by a branch of govt that the people have little power to control.
No, a pension should not be ‘automatically’ forfeit. Regardless of the individuals felony conviction I would assume they paid into a fund for many years. Therefore the pension should be utilized for support of any dependent children the person may have, and a spouse who may qualify for an annuity from the felon’s pension should continue to receive that annuity… unless, of course, they are in some way complicit in the crime or possibly have actively hindered investigation of the crime. The remainder of the pension should then help defray the cost of incarceration.
If simply forfeited whom to? Should it help enrich other fund members while the persons children or spouse are left wanting and taxpayers are forced to fund the incarceration? Why would we insist on punishing the innocent?
“Regardless of the individuals felony conviction”
Just another Liberal that didn’t meet a criminal he didn’t like.
” Why would we insist on punishing the innocent?”
We’re not we’re punishing the criminal.
He worked for it and earned it, just the same as if it was a private pension from a private buisness that most of you all will get. or your 401 k money that you set aside for your golden years. that money will come in handy in prison for treats and payoffs to keep him safe from what ever.
The pension is property of the convicted murderer. Absent legislation that confiscates property upon conviction of a crime, I dont see how his pension can be denied. The fact that this is a govt pension has no bearing on the discussion.
What about laws that require inmates to pay for their incarceration? Having an income stream would seem to be a way to defray costs.
If public employee pension would be forfited, the most logical would be upon conviction of malfeasance of office or position. I would be infavor of legislation that would deny pensions in those situations. I wont hold my breath. Politicians voting to deny themselves pensions after convictions wont happen. The Pols might for public employees, but never themselves.
A broader question is, “Should Iowans convicted of felonies be required to pay for their cost of incarceration?” I’m pretty sure that prison incarceration costs aren’t levied against felons; whereas misdemeanor time served in county jails often is (although how effectively it is collected, I don’t know).
I see no point in having two standards, one for state employees and one for all others. If the crime didn’t involve state employment directly (as in a case of state-agency embezzlement), it has no more claim on an inmate’s pension than it would on that of a privately-employed person in the same circumstances.