Bill would bar federal pension to convicted child predators
Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mt., wants to ensure this doesn’t happen again and on Monday re-introduced the Denying Pensions to Convicted Child Molesters Act. The bluntly titled bill would automatically stop, upon conviction, tax dollars from going to pay for the retirement of child predators who worked for the federal government.
Daines previously introduced the bill in May 2019 and again in September 2020 at a time when Weber was still collecting the pension. Each time it was stalled in the Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee.
Here is the source article, for those asking, who is Weber, etc.:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.foxbusiness.com/politics/bill-federal-pension-convicted-child-predators.amp
Weber abused his position as pediatrician to engage in serial sexual abuse of children on a reservation. That’s worse than what put most registrants on the registry. And, fittingly, the bill applies to a narrow range of crimes. It is not applicable to most registrable offenses. It is not applicable to ANYBODY currently on the registry, except for those few who will re-offend, because it is NOT ex post facto.
Weber would have lost his pension anyway. This bill does not change that. All it does is prevent one from collecting during the review process.
It’s not a bad bill, guys.
No it does not automatically cancel pensions for murderers, who, like Weber, get more due process before losing their pensions. But how many murderers do we think are out there collecting Federal pensions?
A few of observations:
If Weber would have lost his pension anyway, what is the need for the legislation? There are already agency administrative processes for revoking pensions.
It appears that only federal crimes are included. An employee who commits an equivalent state crime would not lose a pension.
This bill would likely have a disproportionate effect on natives–not to mention veterans.
I also worry about the provision for a foreign conviction which specifies being “convicted by an impartial court of appropriate jurisdiction within a foreign country.” Although the bill specifies due process that is “comparable” to that provided in the US, and for equivalent evidence admissibility standards, how is this determined and by whom? Talk about a bowl of legal spaghetti!
This bill is not necessary and is more collateral punishment, just as is the registry. Anyone opposed to registries should oppose this legislation as well. Some may argue deterrence. In law, deterrence is one of the four justifications (incapacitation, retribution and rehabilitation) for punishment resulting from committing a crime. Neither deterrence nor retribution should be a motivation for collateral damage–particularly to spouses and children–as results from this bill.
Veritas.
“Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mt., wants to ensure this doesn’t happen again”
What doesn’t happen again? And as Riff Raff said, who tf is Weber? It’s hard to make rational comments on a portion of an article with no source listed.
This is nothing by reelection grandstanding. He knows its not going anywhere but he can put it on his little reelection mailing brochure he sends to his uneducated constituents who don’t know any better.
It will never make it out of committee for the sole reason that it is unconstitutional as hell. My guess is the US Supreme Court would overturn it 9-0.