Moran in Millwaukee Urinal: Student Aid denial should apply to all felons

[TheMightyFavog]

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=418355

This letter is in reference to an April 21 article by Megan Twohey, "Drug law cuts off student aid."

This law is a fine example of the correct procedure that students should follow to be accepted into any government program that funds their higher education. The law doesn't go far enough in its scope; all convictions that are felonies must be included.

Government assistance for higher education is not a given right; it is a privilege that must be worked for and earned. There are far too many fine, hard-working, outstanding young people who deserve help with their college education. We shouldn't be wasting money on ne'er-do-wells who can't show that they are on a path that would make their education a priority for society.

How arrogant are these adults who show no respect for society's laws yet turn around and hold their hand out to the same society to help them with their education!

There is one question that begs to be answered: How do these students who don't have money for their education have money for drugs?

Marlene Blomberg
Brookfield

Yes, let's give felons yet another reason to go back to a life of crime.

[Dinger]

1. Fuck Him . . . Unconstitutional

I'm not a lawyer, but as far as I know, you debt to society only has to be paid once, right? I remember Coretta scott Kinf Saying something about this once. I'll see if I can find the link . . . .

(edit for link) http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9785-2004Aug17.html

[Dinger]

7. Here's The Link For Coretta Scott King's View On This:

http://www.youthrights.org/forums/archive/index.php?t-1826.html

[jody]

9. delete

[CatholicEdHead]

19. This argument also makes lifelong voting restrictions unconstitutional

I think that they should get their full civil rights back as soon as they are released and paid their debt to society. There is no reason to take away voting rights for life.

[Zynx]

26. Agree completely.

It is the greatest travesty in voting rights since the old voting laws in the South.

[dsc]

2. in point of fact it is absurd

that you could murder a bus load of nuns and still get federal aid but if you smoke a joint you can't.

[Selatius]

3. Who is he to play judge and juror?

If you paid for your crime, you should not be punished for the rest of your life. I guess in his world, everybody is perfect.

[rurallib]

4. Marlene!! Come on down and get your BROWN SHIRT

You have earned it!!

[midnight]

5. I hate to generalize about my neighbor in Brookfield,but......

The premier school dist. of Elmbrook does not have a great number of its student's reading. I can say this with some certainty because my children were in the school dist. This population has many students in advanced courses for reasons other than academics. It is quit a charade of back scratching. Anyways, my point is that there is such little reading at the school level because the parent's don't read, hence a narrow base from which to think from. Which is probably why this women is so narrow in her opinions.

[jody]

6. OK but given limited funds for scholarships, should convicted felons have

the same priority as law abiding students?

[Dinger]

8. Please Read My Post Above . . .

on Coretta Scott King's views on this.

[jody]

10. I respect Ms. King's view but given limited funds, why should law breakers

have the same priority as law abiding students for scholarships?

[Dinger]

11. Because There Debt Has Been Paid

I just thing any U.S. citizen should be able to vote. Just my opinion. Hope it doesn't offend.

[jody]

12. Voting does not cost society but an educational scholarship costs

tens of thousands of dollars. Why should convicted felons have the same priority for scholarships as law-abiding students?

IMO, we should legalize marijuana and empty our jails of all prisoners sentenced for possession or dealing. I'm open to suggestions for dealing with more serious drugs but I know our current policies have failed.

[Dinger]

15. Without An Education, What Tools Do They Have To Make A Living & Improve

their lives? The more their choices are limited, the poorer the choices they will make. They will have no hope for their future, and people without hope will get desperate. If you take an option like a scholarship away from ex-felons, what do they do then? Maybe the scholarship should be a reward, based on positive effort. I'm just sayin'.

[jody]

16. My question was about limited funds, the situation we have today. We give

scholarships to students with high academic scores and deny scholarships to students with low academic scores.

Why not give scholarships to students who obey the law and deny scholarships to students who break the law?

[Dinger]

18. Why Don't We Get More Funds Then?

So more people have the opportunity?

[jody]

21. Why do you avoid my question? There are many programs that are underfunded

including education, training, health, environmental, R&D, and defense.

The problem every political party has that controls congress or a state legislature is making decisions with a limited budget.

We already deny scholarships to many students for various reasons and IMO denying scholarships to convicted felons is acceptable when we have limited funds. Do you agree?

[Zynx]

25. Under that same logic we would deny health care to convicted felons.

That's disgusting. They have paid their debt to society. Besides, our criminal codes are overloaded with felonies. Most felons are relatively harmless. They are not murderers or rapists, but rather they might have slugged somebody in a fit of anger or committed some low grade arson for a prank or they might have been wrongly convicted altogether.

[jody]

27. It may be disgusting but it's real life. If you were a legislator, you

would vote on issues like that all the time where funds are limited.

If you had to decide between giving a heart transplant to a patient who is 21 years old versus one who is 91 years old, which would you choose?

What about funding for the National Endowment for the Arts versus funding prenatal care for indigent women. Would you deny all funds for NEA until all women have prenatal care?

[Zynx]

32. It's not the government's place to decide who lives and who dies.

That should be left out of their hands. Besides, you completely dodged my question.

[jody]

36. Sorry but you changed the issue. Please reread the OP and note its

focus on student aid. A problem exists because funds for student aid or scholarships are limited.

[Zynx]

38. I already stated I feel that the law is wrong.

What else do you want me to say?

[jody]

40. Saying a law is wrong does not eliminate the problem of whether to

fund student aid for convicted felons at the expense of student aid for law-abiding students.

[Zynx]

51. We shouldn't make preferences. That is my position.

We should increase funding by cutting things such as prisons and not make preferences. I don't see what is so hard to understand about my statement that we shouldn't make preferences.

[jody]

56. OK, you are unwilling to make decisions however, your representatives

in congress must make decisions because they vote on our federal budgets.

Dems controlled the 103rd Congress and they passed bills eliminating Pell grants for correctional education. That's one example of the issue we are discussing.

[Zynx]

62. Ugh. I have outlined things to cut.

For example, cut prison funding as we have too many people in prison for too long.

Under your definitions there would never be sufficient funding to give rehabilitated felons student loans since budgets are almost always very tight. Are we to deprive these people of government programs forever?

[jody]

66. Why do you say never be sufficient funding? The issue I raise is about

existing limited funds for student aid. Under those conditions, legislators must decide whether to give aid to law-abiding students or to those with criminal records. That's just the way things are.

[Zynx]

70. What the hell are you even trying to argue?

Okay. Let me draw it out for you clearly since you are obviously not able to fathom these points:

1. People who have served their time and gone through the processes of probation, parole, etc have paid their debt to society and now are regular members of society again.
2. As such they have the same rights to compete for student loans just as anyone else.
3. There are indeed limited funds and not everyone who needs them gets them, however we cannot exclude those who have paid the price for their crimes by further extra-judicial punishment. To do so defeats the entire point of prison.

For example, I could use your argument to say that someone with a mental disability should not get educational funding since funds are tight and they probably wouldn't get as much out of it as a person without a mental disability. After all, why should I give up my student loans to some nut job? I'm not a burden on the state so shouldn't I get some? It is precisely the same line of thinking that you have.

When a person has left the prison system, they are a regular citizen again and should be treated as such. Just because they aren't in certain circumstances already doesn't make your position right. There are many things throughout history and also currently in place that are not morally just and I don't have to support them just because they are.

[jody]

You keep ignoring the OP and my reply. Have a nice day.

:hi:

[Zynx]

74. State how I have ignored it.

I said the law is wrong which, as any first grader could deduce, means I think they should have an equal shot at the money. Are you a little slow or something?

[High Plains]

29. No, I don't agree.

They have paid their debt to society. Now, society needs to be fair and treat them like any other member of society.

Also, you keep talking about scholarships. But the law bars ANY financial assistance, including loans, which are repaid.

Limited funds? Tough choices? End the tax cuts to the rich and get the hell out of Iraq. Don't further punish people who have already been punished.

[jody]

35. Re "law bars ANY financial assistance". Prisoners in jail once received

Pell grants and because of limited funds Pell grants were denied to law-abiding students.

Some prisoners still have educational opportunities, see The Pendulum Swings 65 Years of Corrections Education
QUOTE
Unpublished policy data from the Institute for Higher Education indicate that of the 44 states that responded to their Prisoner Access to Postsecondary Education Survey, 685 facilities offer inmates postsecondary education of some type (Contardo, personal communication, 2005).
UNQUOTE

[Dinger]

47. Recommended, even If It's A Reply

Thank you for some sanity:)

[Zynx]

24. Given limited resources to deal with health problems, why not let felons

just die and let only law abiding people get health care? Is that your next argument? This is preposterous. When a felon has paid their debt to society by going through prison they must be treated as a rehabilitated person or they will never get back into society and will just commit crimes all over again.

[jody]

28. You've changed the issue. My statement assumed limited funds and

asked how to allocate funds between competing demands.

Do you support scholarships for every person regardless of their ability to learn? If you do, then you support such things as graduate school for people who sadly have no capacity to learn.

Our Constitution says "promote the general Welfare", not the welfare of an individual nor a corporation.

SCOTUS has said government is not obligate to protect an individual unless he/she is in government custody, i.e. self-defense is a personal problem. That's true for something so basic as life so it seems reasonable that government is not obligated to give a person health care nor an education unless it can be shown such government programs "promote the general Welfare". Even then legislators must deal with competing demands and a limited budget.

[High Plains]

31. Your "limited budget" stuff is a red herring.

We're spending X billion a month in Iraq. That buys one heck of a lot of scholarships, and finances even more student loans.

It is a matter of budget priorities.

But you're still talking chump change compared to huge, ill-conceived budget items, like defense spending and tax breaks for oil companies.

Yes, the government is not obligated to provide health care or education. Perhaps we need one that is.

[Zynx]

34. Indeed. Most of these costs are very much small things at the margins.

Compared to the big items they are trivial.

[jody]

37. Red herring? I simply stated the obvious as you acknowledge by saying

"It is a matter of budget priorities." Budget priorities become necessary only when funds are limited.

[High Plains]

41. It's a red herring because we are tallking about a trivial amount

of spending compared to big-ticket budget items.

Why are funds limited? It's the old Reagan game: Spend like crazy on war and cut taxes on the rich, thereby achieving conservative social policy goals by starving funding for social programs.

Your argument buys into that game.

Instead, it might be better to ask why we as a society are not providing college funding for everybody who wants to go.

on edit: added the word "conservative"

[jody]

46. Whether an item is trivial ignores the fact that funds for education are

limited.

You can play all the what-if games you wish but the real facts are that education budgets are limited.

[Zynx]

57. What part of the mission of rehabilitation do you not understand?

When someone has served their time in prison, that is all there is to it and they are members of society again. Just because they made a small mistake, and by the way most felonies are tiny infractions not rapes and murders, early on in life they have to be second class citizens for the rest of their lives? It's this kind of thinking that is destroying our criminal justice system and you simply are dismissing it by saying that it is "a reality". Do you not believe in social progress at all? It is hard to believe that anyone who thinks the way you do could possibly call themselves a Democrat.

[jody]

61. You keep ignoring the issue of student aid for felons when funds are

limited.

Perhaps you should consider running for office and if elected gain some experience in making budget decision among competing social demands.

[Zynx]

63. Funds are ALWAYS limited.

We are NEVER sitting there with infinite funds. Under your definitions these people would forever be excluded from these programs.

Also, I am sick and tired of you saying that I have not addressed the question when I have. Former, rehabilitated felons should be able to compete on an equal playing field with everyone else. If there aren't enough funds for those that you call "law-abiding" that's just the way it works just like now. When they have paid their debt to society, that should be the end of their punishment. That is, in theory, the entire basis of our judicial system though people like you want to permanently turn them into second class citizens.

There, now I have explicitly adressed all your points and you can't continue to dodge even though you have tried your best so far.

[jody]

68. You continue to dodge the question, do you support student aid for

convicted felons and deny that same aid to law-abiding students when funds are limited?

Everything you've written leads me to conclude you do but a simple yes or no would clear up any misunderstanding I might have about your position.

[Zynx]

73. I have said so a dozen times.

How in God's name have you not gotten that point yet?

I have said that after a felon has paid their debt to society(in other words they have gotten out of prison and are done with their punishment) they are an ordinary member of society again and should be treated as such. This entitles them to an equal shot at federal education aid money. If they can out compete a law-abiding student for funds based on academic merit, so be it. I am prepared to accept that. When some one serves three years for a felony conviction, THAT is their punishment. You are talking about effectively making it a form of lifetime sentence.

[mconvente]

65. Exactly

We DO have enough money, we just aren't spending it in the right way. People have done calculations here on this stuff - I think I read recently that with all the money spent on the war in iraq we could send all Iraqis (23+ million) to a state college for the average tuition AND room and board (around $17,000 a year) for 4 years and STILL have money left over. So, in terms of Americans, take 1/3 of that money and that more than covers all working class and even struggling lower-middle class students' education, and you have 2/3 left over for universal healthcare.

But, to answer the question because that unfortunately is not the situation we have, I think the problem is more rooted in social concerns rather than money. I would hope that most people (as I) feel that everyone has a right to higher education if he or she chooses. However, how many people here if they owned a business (specifically those in favor of financial aid (loans, grants) to felons) would turn the other cheek to the risk of having a problem again to hire felons? I agree that felons out of jail have paid their debt to society, but I also think that they pose a higher risk to relapsing into criminal behavior. The majority of people in our nation are law abiding and would never do anything criminal. Maybe that speaks bad on our incarceration system, how we need to develop ways to help criminals away from temptations that they may act on and do illegal activities.

I know the above was pretty incoherent, but my general ideal is this: Let felons definitely have access to loans and grants, but to be honest I would favor giving grants to law-abiding citizens over felons. That way, when our spending priorities are in shape, both can equally obtain grants, but under current situations, it may be easier for a non-felon to get a grant. This overall is a very tough issue to decide on, and I know some people here will not agree with my idea, but that's what it is. Again, a main side-point is we need to get our spending priorities in shape.

[Zynx]

33. This is the largest amount of right-wing drivel I've seen on the DU

in a long time. It saddens me that people have this "get fucked" attitude.

My question showed my views on it. I believe fully that they should be given an equal shot. You on the other hand would be perfectly willing to create a second class of citizens just to balance a checkbook. In the long run if we allow reformed felons back into society we will get more tax revenue out of them and won't have to pay for a return trip to prison.

[jody]

39. Is that your best shot, "right-wing drivel"? If so then you lose because

the issue is bipartisan, namely given limited funds, what programs will government fund.

If you want to fund student aid for convicted felons then what programs do you plan to reduce?

[High Plains]

42. Programs to reduce?

The war in Iraq.

Defense spending in general.

Tax breaks to large corporations.

How's that for starters?

[jody]

50. OK, so your next task is to convince voters and their senators &

congresspersons to cut some of those programs.

Perhaps when we Dems regain control of congress we can move in the direction you suggest but I wouldn't be surprised if Dem representatives still oppose funding student aid for felons.

Remember that the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1993 and the Higher Education Reauthorization Act of 1994 eliminated Pell Grant Funding for prisoners when we Dems controlled congress.

In the meantime and as long as funds for student aid is limited, I would rather see my tax dollars go to law-abiding students before convicted felons.

[Zynx]

54. Prisons for one. In Wisconsin prisons are one of our biggest items.

We have many times the incarceration rate of Minnesota with a no higher crime rate.

Also, right-wing drivel can be bipartisan such as the Iraq War Resolution in which a majority of Democratic senators voted for it.

[Dinger]

48. My Point Exactly (nt)

[Nikia]

75. I believe that Federal aid is given without regard to scores and GPA

Certain colleges and organizations and some states give scholarships based on academic achievement. Federal subsidized loans and Pell grants only require that you enroll in a post secodary program and qualify based on need.

[dysfunctional press]

20. if marijuana was legalized tomorrow-

AND people who had been arrested for felony posession had their sentences commuted- should they then have an equal shot at scholarships, too...?

[jody]

30. Makes sense to me and I would support expunging their records of MJ crimes

[dysfunctional press]

44. but they are convicted felons...lawbreakers.

it doesn't matter if the law was changed tomorrow- or if the remainder of their sentences were commuted- they'd still be convicted felons who broke the law...why should they get equal consideration with those students who broke no laws?

why do you favor some felons over others?

after all- wasn't it you that posted the following:

"...Why not give scholarships to students who obey the law and deny scholarships to students who break the law?".

[jody]

45. There is such a thing as an unjust law. I believe MLK made that point . nt

[dysfunctional press]

49. so being black & societally oppressed is the same as dealing drugs?

:crazy: :silly:
:silly: :crazy:

people don't get felony posession charges for a personal stash of weed.

[jody]

53. I have no idea what point you are trying to make because the OP was

about student aid for convicted criminals. I pointed out that given limited funds for student aid, one had to choose between giving aid to law-abiding students and students with a criminal record.

I assume from your reply that you would give student aid to convicted criminals before law-abiding students, i.e. you would reward criminal behavior. :shrug:

[dysfunctional press]

55. YOU would reward criminal behaviour-

YOU said that people with FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS should be given equal consideration to totally law-abiding students.

i.e.- you have proven yourself to be a hypocrite, whose opinion has all the merits of a steaming pile of dogshit...:hi:

[Zynx]

58. They are a hypocrite.

Thank you for proving it. I can't seem to pin them down because they debate in the most peculiar fashion I've ever seen.

[jody]

59. Sorry but you need to reread my posts. I said only people with

marijuana convictions should have those crimes removed from their records.

That's completely different from your misstatement "YOU said that people with FELONY DRUG CONVICTIONS should be given equal consideration to totally law-abiding students."

[Name removed]

78. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Zynx]

60. Every resource in the world is limited. Are we supposed to cut them all

off to this newly created second class of citizens? Gas is limited, water is limited, food is limited, housing is limited, medicine is limited. Are we supposed to go through every single government program and cut them off to those who have been rehabilitated whenever money gets a little tight? Why should one mistake mark a person for the rest of their lives?

[jody]

64. Don't you know that we already deny such things as gas, food, housing,

medicine, etc. to people who cannot afford those things? :shrug:

[Zynx]

67. I really don't see what your point is.

The same is true with education. The argument is precisely the same. Are we to put those that have paid their debt to society constantly last in line?

[jody]

69. I must conclude you would give aid to a convicted criminal over a

law-abiding student when only one can receive aid.

[Zynx]

72. If the convicted criminal is more deserving based on merits, yes.

That is exactly my point. I've said so all along. They paid their debt and now they are on the same level as me. I'm not prepared to flush a person's life down the drain even further by denying them an education.

[Zynx]

52. And you base making people second class citizens on your own little

distinctions between the laws?

[OneBlueSky]

13. I found this one very weird . . .

my ISP (Optimum Online) is currently running a contest for $25,000 in home improvements . . . you can enter once a day, so I've been doing so whenever I remember to . . .

last night I thought I'd take a glance at the contest rules, just to see what I'd get if I actually won (fat chance) . . . I was more than surprised to find a provision that says that anyone convicted of or having plead guilty to a felony in the past ten years was ineligible to enter the contest! . . . and all I could think was "Why?" . . .

pretty soon, convicted felons won't be able to do anything except sit on park benches -- and even that's probably not allowed in some areas . . .

[Dinger]

14. You Make An Excellent Point:

"Pretty soon, convicted felons won't be able to do anything except sit on park benches -- and even that's probably not allowed in some areas . . ."

What is the end game here? Just execute all felons, because they won't be able to do a damn thing? Perpetual sentencing anyone? Oh, and no I'm not a felon.

[KyuzoGator]

17. Every time I see this thread, I envision a guy at a urinal talking.

Maybe it's just me.

[madinmaryland]

22. That was what I thought when I saw the headline for this post, too!!

:rofl:

[Zynx]

23. They screw up once, pay their debt to society, and are made second class

citizens for the rest of their lives? Obviously we no longer have enough people who believe in rehabilitation, only punishment.

[mconvente]

71. There's a major issue

This total issue has so many facets in it. We should change our spending priorities from an illegal war to higher education and universal healthcare. We should focus on rehabilitation rather than just throwing criminals in a prison. But under our current status (with bad spending priorities), I think that felons should be chosen after (or with less weight) than non-felons for grants. For loans, I think it should be equal.

Before you attempt to refute my point, consider this. If you are a business owner, all qualities being equal, who would you hire: a convicted felon or a non-felon? We should give people 2nd chances, but it's naive to think that convicted felons are less of a risk than non-felons. Of course, that definitely does not apply to everyone, but overall I feel that is an accurate statement. If felons are more at risk to relapsing into criminal activity, they that risk is also there for financial aid (with grants especially).

[0007]

43. This is ignorance in the first degree...and yet we have the gall

to talk about Brotherhood and Jesus on Sundays.

Last scene of all,
That ends this strange eventful history,
Is second childishness and mere oblivion,
Without teeth, weak eyes, absent of taste, sans everything.

[Nikia]

76. College can be cheaper than prision

I am not sure of the exact figures but I remember noticing that at a pro legalization event. Wouldn't it be better to help someone pay for college and change their life around rather than send them back to prision when they go back to crime when they recognize they aren't welcome in society and have limited economic oppurtunities.

[patdem]

77. Eggzactly...PAY FOR HIS EDUCATION OR FOR HIS ROOM & BOARD

in some prison..I was going to say I wanted to SHOUT this out..well I did...PRISONS IN MOST STATES ARE PRIVITIZED HELL HOLES...WHO MAKE THE CEO'S RICH..AND THE PRISONER MORE VIOLENT! :grr:

Edit: spell check does not know how to spell eggzactly...neither do I!