Michigan lottery winner still on food stamps

[Gravitymaster 0]

I think a little jail time, reparations to the tax payers and a few hundred hours of community service for a first time offender would be appropriate.

[Southern_Man 0]

The inquiry revealed that not only did Clayton fail to report her lottery winnings and other employment earnings, as state law requires, she also "allegedly collected approximately $5,475 in food and medical benefits" she would have been ineligible for.

According to Michigan law, welfare recipients must report any changes in assets or income to the agency within 10 days.

Yeah, I think there was probably a lot of political pressure to charge her.

I also agree that there is probably a lot of value in making an example of her and discouraging future fraud.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I also agree that there is probably a lot of value in making an example of her and discouraging future fraud.

I disagree with that with an intensely white hot emotion

"making an example" of someone (i.e., punishing them MORE than you would someone that did the exact same crime) is horribly wrong. period. deterrent is NOT rationalization for unequal treatment under the law

the law needs to be consistent regardless of situation or publicity

it's disturbing to see those kinds of comments

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,645]

If you're treating them within the law, and just adding publicity, I'm not sure why the vehemence is justified.

It's kind of like calling out the guy who is jumping too small a main and acting like an idiot.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

She's now facing felony charges.

I dunno...I don't wanna condone fraud, but doesn't anyone else think this is a tad excessive? a felony?

The theft of $5475 is sufficiently large to warrant that, isn't it? The line between petty theft and grand theft is usually set at $500 or $1000.

I'm sure she'll be able to plea bargain down to a misdomeaner with repayment, but they definitely wanted to publicly warn others of the consequences.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

I also agree that there is probably a lot of value in making an example of her and discouraging future fraud.

I disagree with that with an intensely white hot emotion

"making an example" of someone (i.e., punishing them MORE than you would someone that did the exact same crime) is horribly wrong. period. deterrent is NOT rationalization for unequal treatment under the law

Deterrance is definitely a legitimate aim of the criminal justice system. Some prosecutions have a higher deterrance value than others.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If you're treating them within the law, and just adding publicity,

that's not normally what people mean by "making an example" - they typically mean unequal/elevated level of punishment for the same crime

I don't much care if the issue is just publicity - right up to the point that the publicity suddenly makes judges and lawyers act outside the bounds of their real duty


There nothing "Just" about tacking on extra years just so a judge or a prosecutor or a mayor can have a good sound bite on TV.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I also agree that there is probably a lot of value in making an example of her and discouraging future fraud.

I disagree with that with an intensely white hot emotion

"making an example" of someone (i.e., punishing them MORE than you would someone that did the exact same crime) is horribly wrong. period. deterrent is NOT rationalization for unequal treatment under the law

Deterrance is definitely a legitimate aim of the criminal justice system. Some prosecutions have a higher deterrance value than others.

as I said - deterrence is NOT rationalization for unequal treatment


would you agree to give 20 year sentences to black burglars and 10 year sentences to burglars of every other race based on statistics that this would have a net affect in reducing the total incidence of burglary in your city?


If a crime has a standard punishment of 10 to 20 years based on the severity of the crime - that's fine - but if the sole purpose of maxing out the penalty is for deterrence (publicity) rather than related to the severity of the crime, then that shows a bias in the punishment that has NOTHING to do with the actions of the criminal.

I don't think we should increase, nor decrease, a penalty just because of popularity, or visibility. The only thing that should be visible to the public is that the system is fair and equal and follows the rules that address the actual conduct of a criminal.

deterrence should be a side effect only - not a mission

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

would you agree to give 20 year sentences to black burglars and 10 year sentences to burglars of every other race based on statistics that this would have a net affect in reducing the total incidence of burglary in your city?

What's the normal punishment for lotto winners who commit fraud? It's harder to justify welfare cheating by those with hundreds of thousands of dollars. They should be punished more aggressively than someone who is struggling to get by.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

would you agree to give 20 year sentences to black burglars and 10 year sentences to burglars of every other race based on statistics that this would have a net affect in reducing the total incidence of burglary in your city?

What's the normal punishment for lotto winners who commit fraud? It's harder to justify welfare cheating by those with hundreds of thousands of dollars. They should be punished more aggressively than someone who is struggling to get by.

Fraud is fraud - the penalty should be defined. So in your world, some pigs are MORE equal than others?

you are advocating different punishment for the same crime - or, you are "justifying" crime for some, but not others. Situational morality is sad.

you aren't punishing the criminal for their act - you want to punish the criminal based on YOUR outrage. That's not justice, that's vigilantism (and not Kallend's version).

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

would you agree to give 20 year sentences to black burglars and 10 year sentences to burglars of every other race based on statistics that this would have a net affect in reducing the total incidence of burglary in your city?

What's the normal punishment for lotto winners who commit fraud? It's harder to justify welfare cheating by those with hundreds of thousands of dollars. They should be punished more aggressively than someone who is struggling to get by.

Fraud is fraud - the penalty should be defined

you are advocating different punishment for the same crime - or, you are "justifying" crime for some, but not others. Situational morality is sad.

Though judges are increasingly told how to sentence, traditionally they are able to view for mitigating circumstances. Greed should be punished more than desparation.

The point of welfare is to assist the poor, not the rich or the newly rich. Money they take reduces what can be done for those who have need.

The length of this thread backs this. We wouldn't be nearly so interested in the case of a McDonald's worker lying about her (vast) income to get more benefits.

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

as I said - deterrence is NOT rationalization for unequal treatment


would you agree to give 20 year sentences to black burglars and 10 year sentences to burglars of every other race based on statistics that this would have a net affect in reducing the total incidence of burglary in your city?


If a crime has a standard punishment of 10 to 20 years based on the severity of the crime - that's fine - but if the sole purpose of maxing out the penalty is for deterrence (publicity) rather than related to the severity of the crime, then that shows a bias in the punishment that has NOTHING to do with the actions of the criminal.

I don't think we should increase, nor decrease, a penalty just because of popularity, or visibility. The only thing that should be visible to the public is that the system is fair and equal and follows the rules that address the actual conduct of a criminal.

deterrence should be a side effect only - not a mission

Well, I think that is a fine theory in theory. In point of fact these kinds of cases are evaluted individually. Sometimes that is done at the point of prosecutorial discretion (and sometimes the Social Services Department makes the call even before that) and sometimes at tht point of sentencing.

My guess (I work in this system but have no hard facts to go on) is that 90%+ of these cases are never prosecuted. The people are allowed to repay any benefits they improperly received. This is like due to a couple of factors:

1. Sums are relatively small so it is hard to justify investigation/prosecution time in them
2. lack of ability to prove intent. Generally fraud requires intent to be proven. This can be hard to prove when uneducated people are dealing with a complex system. (this is a stereotype of course).

The context in which I work with people with welfare benefits is as a case manager for people with intellectual disabilities. In my case I can almost guarentee that one of my clients receiving illegal benefits would not be charged due to lack of ability to prove intent.

I still would guess they can't prove intent with this woman, but I don't really konw that. There are facts yet to be revealed. My point is simply that you have to deal with individual facts in individual cases.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[Southern_Man 0]

dead of a drug overdose:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/lottery-winner-who-was-charged-with-welfare-fraud-found-dead?hpt=hp_t3

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[airdvr 210]

Quote

dead of a drug overdose:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/lottery-winner-who-was-charged-with-welfare-fraud-found-dead?hpt=hp_t3

The American dream of working hard and owning a home, maybe someday retiring to sunny FL has been replaced with winning the lottery and casinos.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[RonD1120 62]

Quote

Quote

dead of a drug overdose:

http://www.wxyz.com/dpp/news/region/wayne_county/lottery-winner-who-was-charged-with-welfare-fraud-found-dead?hpt=hp_t3

The American dream of working hard and owning a home, maybe someday retiring to sunny FL has been replaced with winning the lottery and casinos.

And, Food Stamps, don't forget Food Stamps. Also, dope will get you through times without money better than money will get you through times without dope.

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[rhaig 0]

Quote

He said she did not want the money anymore and bought things for her family and set up college funds for her children. He says she only had $67,000 dollars of her winnings left.

well at least she did some good with it.

--
Rob

[billvon 3,176]

Sadly, often one of the worst things you can do to someone is to give them lots of money suddenly. Investment counselors often consider that the riskiest time (financially) in someone's life. Lottery winners often end up in debt, out of work, in jail, killed by friends or relatives or even killing themselves. This one was especially tragic - she died with her 18 month old daughter in her arms.

[Lefty 0]

Quote

Sadly, often one of the worst things you can do to someone is to give them lots of money suddenly. Investment counselors often consider that the riskiest time (financially) in someone's life. Lottery winners often end up in debt, out of work, in jail, killed by friends or relatives or even killing themselves. This one was especially tragic - she died with her 18 month old daughter in her arms.

A very sobering thought.

Provoking a reaction isn't the same thing as saying something meaningful.
-Calvin

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Sadly, often one of the worst things you can do to someone is to give them lots of money suddenly. Investment counselors often consider that the riskiest time (financially) in someone's life. Lottery winners often end up in debt, out of work, in jail, killed by friends or relatives or even killing themselves. This one was especially tragic - she died with her 18 month old daughter in her arms.

So true. There are quite a few lottery winners who will tell you they would not wish winning the lottery on their worst enemy.