woman who helped felons escape prison keeps pension

[swamp]

www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/mitchell-may-keep-pension-despite-conviction-20150731

Joyce Mitchell, the woman who helped Richard Matt and David Sweat escape Dannemora prison, pleads guilty.  She keeps her accrued NYS pension.

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  The search cost NYS millions of dollars.  However, it's a property right she earned through her employment.  If NYS passed a law requiring felons to forfeit their public pensions, it would be a serious deterrent to plea bargaining.   And if the felony wasn't through their employment (like a DWI) why should they lose it?

[Green Eyed Lady]

It's sounds a little distasteful but in reality, she earned that before she did anything wrong (I'm assuming). I don't think you should profit from a crime in any way, but neither should stuff you worked for prior to your mess-up be confiscated (unless it was used in commission of a crime).

I guess....my first thought anyway.

[resolution]

I don't think it would be fair, unless we also confiscate the 401K's and rollover IRA's of people who commit crimes. If those are subject to restitution when someone defrauds their employer, then maybe her pension should also be garnished or clawed back to pay for the man hunt. 

[The Captain]

Jul 31, 2015 11:08:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/mitchell-may-keep-pension-despite-conviction-20150731

Joyce Mitchell, the woman who helped Richard Matt and David Sweat escape Dannemora prison, pleads guilty.  She keeps her accrued NYS pension.

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  The search cost NYS millions of dollars.  However, it's a property right she earned through her employment.  If NYS passed a law requiring felons to forfeit their public pensions, it would be a serious deterrent to plea bargaining.   And if the felony wasn't through their employment (like a DWI) why should they lose it?

A public servant who places an additional burden on the public they are supposed to serve (by committing a felony, crime, whatever) should not benefit from the public at the same time they are creating a burden to the public.

In other words, use the pension money to offset the cost of the search/jail.

It is the law in IL if it's in relation to the employment which I think is bullshit.  Now we have too much time spent trying to split hairs as to what is directly vs indirectly related to employment and how far the indirect involvement can reach.

I don't know how much, or if at all you followed the Ryan case here - but the amount of resources spent arguing if he lost his pension or not was just freaking insane. 

The same thing went on with Drew Peterson. 

You want the benefits of public service (pensions, earlier retirement) then yes, you should be held accountable to the public you serve and not benefit from a pension if your actions place an undue burden on the public.

Just my thoughts.  I'm sure there are good counter-arguments.

[gs11rmb]

I think she legally earned the pension and is therefore entitled to it - whether or not she should be required to pay restitution is another matter.

[8 Bit WWBG]

I saw a similar case about disgraced executives still being able to retire with full benefits.  It's a tough call.  One has to wonder if the possibility of losing 30 years worth of accrual would be a deterrent.  On the other hand, what does that mean for the person who is now broke and unemployable?  Do they become a drain on the public dollar?

[bean29]

Well, considering a pension is marital property in my state, I think it would be unfair to the spouse if they lost their future income/health insurance in this way.  Assuming the spouse is innocent and not involved in any way. 

[swamp]

Jul 31, 2015 11:47:04 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Well, considering a pension is marital property in my state, I think it would be unfair to the spouse if they lost their future income/health insurance in this way.  Assuming the spouse is innocent and not involved in any way. 

In this case, he was innocent and not involved.

The husband was also a prison employee and has his own insurance and pension.

[973beachbum]

Jul 31, 2015 11:47:04 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Well, considering a pension is marital property in my state, I think it would be unfair to the spouse if they lost their future income/health insurance in this way.  Assuming the spouse is innocent and not involved in any way. 

I feel a little bad for the spouse but no more than I do for any family member of a convicted felon.  I'm sure most of them had nothing to do with the crimes that their family member committed.  I'm still sure it must suck big time to be forever known as the family member of a murderer too. 

This will just have to be one of those times where a person is screwed by their spouse.  Happens all the time.  I still don't feel sorry enough to want the state to pay for a public pension and health insurance.


PS I do agree that if they had their own contributions in there those should be taken out and handed back to the former employee.  Then the state should sue them for restitution.

[NoNamePerson]

They could pass a federal law.   Oh wait that won't work look at all the crooked political scum bags that would have to forfeit theirs. 

[Mardi Gras Audrey]

I think that if you are going to let them keep their pensions, make them pay room and board if they are incarcerated.  You houldn't get to "bank" your pension while the taxpayers pay for your room/board.  Make the room/board and sliding scale that happens to match what the pension is.  They can keep the pension after they get out of prison but no way in hell should we supporting them twice while incarcerated (Once through the pension and once through the prison bill).

I also think the state should sue for restituion costs and be able to offset those costs by garnishing the pension.  

[973beachbum]

Aug 1, 2015 14:04:54 GMT -5 @tbird said:

Aug 1, 2015 13:35:17 GMT -5 973beachbum said:

I feel a little bad for the spouse but no more than I do for any family member of a convicted felon.  I'ere ism sure most of them had nothing to do with the crimes that their family member committed.  I'm still sure it must suck big time to be forever known as the family member of a murderer too. 

This will just have to be one of those times where a person is screwed by their spouse.  Happens all the time.  I still don't feel sorry enough to want the state to pay for a public pension and health insurance.


PS I do agree that if they had their own contributions in there those should be taken out and handed back to the former employee.  Then the state should sue them for restitution.

really? murdering him was part of the plan!

I feel bad for any victim of a crime.  But as a family member of someone who was murdered I can tell you that there is no attempt to compensate them.    I agree that in a case like this the spouse would get screwed because they had counted on that pension.  But I'm sure there are lots of spouses who get screwed because their spouses do really dumb or criminal things and no one worries about how they will live in retirement.

This is one of those cases that it seems we need to state the obvious I think.  If you marry an ass, drug addict or criminal you are going to get screwed!

[TheHaitian]

I can see both sides and I understand not wanting to punish the spouse that wasn't aware of it, but like the other poster said: that is a risk they took by being married to that person.

But maybe being able to keep her pension is something they agreed to so she could cooperate with authorities.

[beergut]

Jul 31, 2015 12:40:36 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

Alabama had several teachers in the past few years convicted of sex crimes with their students.  Some had already retired and were receiving their pensions while in prison.

So Alabama recently revised the law, and employees lose their pensions.  However, since employees contribute toward our pensions (7.5% for teachers, 8.5% for firefighters and police officers), the state has to refund our contributions plus the accrued interest. If the convicted felon has begun to draw, the total of what he/she has received so far is subtracted from the state's refund.  The revision is not retroactive.

That sounds fair. It's not like your employer gets to keep your 401k if you are convicted of a felony.  Not all pensions are freebies.

Now if the state wants to sue to recover costs, I have no problem with that.  That also sounds fair.

Police and firefighters are in the same pension as teachers?

 Interesting.

In Texas, there is TRS for teachers/school employees, and then the individual cities have their own pension plans for police/firefighters. Dallas' police/firefighter pension is separate from the city pension, though, which is one of the reasons it is so successful. 

[joemilitary]

I like the Social Security analogy and see the pension the same way.

Unfortunately, if she met all the gates for the pension, I think she should keep it. If it grows bigger while she is in jail, so be it if those are the rules (not familiar with state pensions).

If she worked for Google, and embezzled money from google or whatever, and for argument sake if Google had a pension (not sure if they do or not).....wouldn't she still qualify for her pension (again assuming she met the minimum pension gates)

If she was retirement age eligible for Social Security and got locked up in a Federal penn.....would they take away her SS? If she hadn't claimed it yet and was 67 and was going to be in jail for 3 years (so she could now claim the max at age 70), should they use some sliding scale to take away this increase?

I think the punishment---of going to jail (which is a punishment in its own right BTW), should not impact any other benefits the person earned.

Just my 2 cents

[beergut]

Aug 2, 2015 12:56:11 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

Aug 2, 2015 11:57:37 GMT -5 beergut said:

Police and firefighters are in the same pension as teachers?

 Interesting.

In Texas, there is TRS for teachers/school employees, and then the individual cities have their own pension plans for police/firefighters. Dallas' police/firefighter pension is separate from the city pension, though, which is one of the reasons it is so successful. 

No, we aren't in the same system.  There are three systems--one for teachers, one for the judicial system, and one for other employees.  They are all, however, under the "umbrella" of Retirement Systems of Alabama or RSA and run more or less by the same people. 

The one for "other" employees includes state employees but also local employees.  But just because the state administers it doesn't mean that local pensions are guaranteed by the state.  The city of Prichard, Alabama, actually has defaulted on theirs.

I don't think there are any individual cities that operate pension funds outside of RSA.  The scale just isn't there. 

 The City of Dallas has been trying to get their hands on the Dallas Police/Fire Pension for years, because it has performed very well. DPD/DFD is too smart to let that happen. 

Of course, we're talking about one of the top 10 most populous cities in America, so it makes sense for them to operate their own pensions.

[skubikky]

Jul 31, 2015 11:52:07 GMT -5 swamp said:

Jul 31, 2015 11:47:04 GMT -5 bean29 said:

Well, considering a pension is marital property in my state, I think it would be unfair to the spouse if they lost their future income/health insurance in this way.  Assuming the spouse is innocent and not involved in any way. 

In this case, he was innocent and not involved.

The husband was also a prison employee and has his own insurance and pension.

What is the law in New York with regard to property and asset rights for felons?

[swamp]

Aug 3, 2015 7:50:19 GMT -5 skubikky said:

Jul 31, 2015 11:52:07 GMT -5 swamp said:

In this case, he was innocent and not involved.

The husband was also a prison employee and has his own insurance and pension.

What is the law in New York with regard to property and asset rights for felons?

Same as the rest of us.

[happyhoix]

I am less surprised she got to keep her pension and more surprised she's still got her husband. 
 
I saw on TV the DH walking out of prison after he had visited her, and someone asked him why he was still with her, and DH said "Because I love her." 

I am 100% certain my DH would not respond that way.

[TheHaitian]

Aug 3, 2015 13:21:55 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I am less surprised she got to keep her pension and more surprised she's still got her husband. 
 
I saw on TV the DH walking out of prison after he had visited her, and someone asked him why he was still with her, and DH said "Because I love her." 

I am 100% certain my DH would not respond that way.

You think? He must have another reason because SHE wanted him dead so she could run away with them.

Or he is just as crazy as she is?

[happyhoix]

Aug 3, 2015 13:30:53 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

Aug 3, 2015 13:21:55 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

I am less surprised she got to keep her pension and more surprised she's still got her husband. 
 
I saw on TV the DH walking out of prison after he had visited her, and someone asked him why he was still with her, and DH said "Because I love her." 

I am 100% certain my DH would not respond that way.

You think? He must have another reason because SHE wanted him dead so she could run away with them.

Or he is just as crazy as she is?

I have to think he does love her and decided, ultimately, she couldn't go through with the plan because she didn't want the thugs to kill him, so she must really love him, too.  And maybe he feels sorry for her because I'm sure she's the most hated person in their small town, right now. I noticed when she was in court she was in a bulletproof vest.

For me, the fact that my DH ever considered killing me so he could run away (as opposed to just divorcing my ass) would be a good enough reason to divorce him and stay far, far away.

[TheHaitian]

Aug 3, 2015 16:04:09 GMT -5 happyhoix said:

Aug 3, 2015 13:30:53 GMT -5 TheHaitian said:

You think? He must have another reason because SHE wanted him dead so she could run away with them.

Or he is just as crazy as she is?

I have to think he does love her and decided, ultimately, she couldn't go through with the plan because she didn't want the thugs to kill him, so she must really love him, too.  And maybe he feels sorry for her because I'm sure she's the most hated person in their small town, right now. I noticed when she was in court she was in a bulletproof vest.

For me, the fact that my DH ever considered killing me so he could run away (as opposed to just divorcing my ass) would be a good enough reason to divorce him and stay far, far away.

I personally think dude is crazy lol or so in love he cannot see straight. He did an interview where he stated that his wife swore to him she did not sleep with the convicts and he believed her.... because she swore on his son's life.

Also he believe she did not plan on killing him.

Really dude? Did you read her confession where she plead guilty?

I can forgive cheating, sleeping around etc. we can work through that....planning to kill me is something no amount of therapy is going to make me forget! That is my invisible line in the sand

[Deleted]

Jul 31, 2015 11:08:32 GMT -5 swamp said:

www.watertowndailytimes.com/news03/mitchell-may-keep-pension-despite-conviction-20150731

Joyce Mitchell, the woman who helped Richard Matt and David Sweat escape Dannemora prison, pleads guilty.  She keeps her accrued NYS pension.

Your thoughts?

I'm not sure how I feel about this.  The search cost NYS millions of dollars.  However, it's a property right she earned through her employment.  If NYS passed a law requiring felons to forfeit their public pensions, it would be a serious deterrent to plea bargaining.   And if the felony wasn't through their employment (like a DWI) why should they lose it?

She can use that pension to pay back the millions she should owe the state for her crime.

[happyhoix]

Aug 3, 2015 21:41:17 GMT -5 @southernsusana said:

My aunt's brother (notice that I don't call him my uncle) was arrested because they had him on tape planning to burn down her house.  When he was told that she never left her house (she was in her early 90s at that point), he said that would be an unfortunate consequence.

Although she heard the tapes and knew he was arrested and called me to help her through this, she eventually preferred to believe that he was innocent and framed.  I heard all about sediment in wine and other ways that he was drugged to this point.

It broke my heart because she lived in poverty so that he could live large on her money.  He had her power of attorney and transferred everything into his name "in case she was sued."

People sometimes choose to believe the best of the people they love despite hard evidence.

I forgot to mention that she ended up bankrupt, etc.  But she lived to be almost 101 so in the end it no longer mattered to her or anyone else (the property, I mean).

Very sad.

I don't know how people can prey on elderly relatives like this, but evidently it happens all the time.