Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
17 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
You gotta be kidding: Jerry Sandusky seeks reinstatement of pension (Original Post) jmowreader Jan 2014 OP
He forfeited his right to all those perks IMO. lpbk2713 Jan 2014 #1
The legal argument is interesting. LiberalAndProud Jan 2014 #2
That's the difference between a pension and social insurance Recursion Jan 2014 #14
I don't know how this will be decided legally, but I know why Sandusky's doing it. Avalux Jan 2014 #3
he earned it.... mike_c Jan 2014 #4
Good point Blue_Tires Jan 2014 #6
+10000 Extremely important post. woo me with science Jan 2014 #9
Exactly. NuclearDem Jan 2014 #10
It's also a very dangerous precedent Recursion Jan 2014 #13
Good luck with that. Hopefully the judges continue to throw the book at that disgusting POS. Initech Jan 2014 #5
Jerry is in jail forever, but should his wife be deprived of the pension? kwassa Jan 2014 #7
His wife was complicit. Jenoch Jan 2014 #8
Was she? How do you know? kwassa Jan 2014 #11
He was bringing all kinds of yoing boys home Jenoch Jan 2014 #15
How do you know that? Got links? kwassa Jan 2014 #16
My mistake. Jenoch Jan 2014 #17
It's not the state's money to withhold Recursion Jan 2014 #12

LiberalAndProud

(12,799 posts)
2. The legal argument is interesting.
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 05:56 PM
Jan 2014

This will keep Sandusky in the news, no doubt.


If he prevails, could it be argued that since I started contributing to my Social Security trust back in 1976, I should be able to retire with full benefits at the age of 65?

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
14. That's the difference between a pension and social insurance
Wed Jan 8, 2014, 12:14 AM
Jan 2014

You aren't vested in SS like you are in a pension; this comes with both advantages and disadvantages.

Avalux

(35,015 posts)
3. I don't know how this will be decided legally, but I know why Sandusky's doing it.
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 06:00 PM
Jan 2014

He's being sued and his wife needs to continue to live in the way she's accustomed to living. Disgusting people.

mike_c

(36,281 posts)
4. he earned it....
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 07:35 PM
Jan 2014

I posted this response in the LBN thread about this. I'm a bit shocked at how many supposedly liberal, progressive people seem to be obsessed with endless punishment.

I cannot support punitively taking away someone's pension for crimes that were not related to the employment agreement that gives them the right to a pension. That's a slippery slope we should not go down, IMO.

I'm a public employee on faculty at a state university, just like Sandusky. I'm not a pedophile, but no doubt I break some law or other every single day. So does most every other public employee with negotiated pensions. Should my pension be taken away, despite decades of service, because I use cannabis, for example? Some would view that as a moral issue, others simply as a legal matter. What about if I cheat on my taxes? Or just make a mistake? What if I trespass? What if I have non-consensual sex with my neighbor's kid? Where is the line, and what's the connection between having earned that pension through negotiated years of service and having committed an unrelated crime?

Sandusky is ALREADY being punished for the crimes he committed. He has been sentenced.


So where does the revenge stop? He'll spend the rest of his life in jail as punishment for his crimes. Should we simply impoverish his family too, or maybe send them to re-education camps in North Korea, too? Pull out some fingernails and tongues, as well? Our justice system is not supposed to be an endless pit of perpetual suffering.

woo me with science

(32,139 posts)
9. +10000 Extremely important post.
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:30 PM
Jan 2014

Your explanation here of why this is both legally and morally horrifying is spot on. Thank you for this post.

I would add that Americans will vastly regret setting precedents for taking pensions as a result of crimes that have nothing to do with those pensions. Keep in mind that we already have a criminal government working to find every possible avenue to loot pensions from the workers who have earned them, and we already have a criminal NSA fabricating evidence trails against Americans who cannot defend themselves. This is akin to setting (yet another) monetary reward for finding reasons to arrest people.

 

NuclearDem

(16,184 posts)
10. Exactly.
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:33 PM
Jan 2014

Sandusky is a monstrous piece of shit, but I don't want to start a legal precedent that allows employers to (further) cut pensions.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
13. It's also a very dangerous precedent
Wed Jan 8, 2014, 12:12 AM
Jan 2014

If we ignore the fact that it's his money, and act like it's the state's, suddenly pension clawbacks all over become acceptable.

It's not the state's money to "take back"; it's his. If you want to take that money, there are civil tort procedures for that.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
7. Jerry is in jail forever, but should his wife be deprived of the pension?
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 10:27 PM
Jan 2014

How will she live?

I'm only a couple of degrees of separation from Jerry, though I've never met him. People close to me know him well.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
8. His wife was complicit.
Tue Jan 7, 2014, 11:12 PM
Jan 2014

She new what was going on. He abused those boys at their home as well as at the school.

I think they should reinstate the pension and then give it to the victims.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
15. He was bringing all kinds of yoing boys home
Wed Jan 8, 2014, 12:23 AM
Jan 2014

and was sleeping with them in the family room. She knew what was gong on.

kwassa

(23,340 posts)
16. How do you know that? Got links?
Wed Jan 8, 2014, 12:39 AM
Jan 2014

The sex that allegedly took place in the Sandusky home was in a basement bedroom, not the family room.

 

Jenoch

(7,720 posts)
17. My mistake.
Wed Jan 8, 2014, 12:41 AM
Jan 2014

That makes it even worse that his wife ignored what was going on. I do not believe tgat she was unaware.

Recursion

(56,582 posts)
12. It's not the state's money to withhold
Wed Jan 8, 2014, 12:10 AM
Jan 2014

That's his money. Unless the court ordered a financial judgement against him which involves seizing those assets, they're his.

(I do certainly hope the victims can sue the bejesus out of him and get all of that money, of course, but that's the way to do it, not by withholding his pension.)

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»You gotta be kidding: Jer...