Should Sex Offenders Be Allowed to Get Federal Pensions?

[ – 5/8/19]

Legislation has recently been introduced that would prohibit convicted pedophiles from receiving federal pensions.
The Denying Pensions to Convicted Child Molesters Act (S. 1264) was introduced by Senator Steve Daines (R-MT). It would block convicted sex offenders from receiving federal pensions.

Daines introduced the bill in response to news that Dr. Stanley Patrick Weber, a former pediatrician with the Indian Health Service, was recently convicted to 18 years in federal prison for molesting children while he worked at the agency. Since he will continue receiving an approximately $100,000 per year pension while in prison, he could end up with nearly $2 million during his 18 year sentence.

“It’s shocking that a government employee can still receive a pension after being convicted of sexually abusing children,” said Daines. “That is unacceptable, which is why I will take action and introduce a bill today to fix this flawed system.”

Read more


Related posts

Notify of

We welcome a lively discussion with all view points - keeping in mind...


  1. Your submission will be reviewed by one of our volunteer moderators. Moderating decisions may be subjective.
  2. Please keep the tone of your comment civil and courteous. This is a public forum.
  3. Swear words should be starred out such as f*k and s*t
  4. Please stay on topic - both in terms of the organization in general and this post in particular.
  5. Please refrain from general political statements in (dis)favor of one of the major parties or their representatives.
  6. Please take personal conversations off this forum.
  7. We will not publish any comments advocating for violent or any illegal action.
  8. We cannot connect participants privately - feel free to leave your contact info here. You may want to create a new / free, readily available email address.
  9. Please refrain from copying and pasting repetitive and lengthy amounts of text.
  10. Please do not post in all Caps.
  11. If you wish to link to a serious and relevant media article, legitimate advocacy group or other pertinent web site / document, please provide the full link. No abbreviated / obfuscated links. Posts that include a URL may take considerably longer to be approved.
  12. We suggest to compose lengthy comments in a desktop text editor and copy and paste them into the comment form
  13. We will not publish any posts containing any names not mentioned in the original article.
  14. Please choose a short user name that does not contain links to other web sites or identify real people
  15. Please do not solicit funds
  16. If you use any abbreviation such as Failure To Register (FTR), or any others, the first time you use it please expand it for new people to better understand.
  17. All commenters are required to provide a real email address where we can contact them.  It will not be displayed on the site.
  18. Please send any input regarding moderation or other website issues via email to moderator [at] all4consolaws [dot] org
ACSOL, including but not limited to its board members and agents, does not provide legal advice on this website.  In addition, ACSOL warns that those who provide comments on this website may or may not be legal professionals on whose advice one can reasonably rely.  

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

If the person did their job, they shouldn’t lose any contractual obligations they’re due.

If they want to introduce something into the contract going forward for new people that certain actions will result in forfeit of pension and other benefits, that’s fine. But certainly not retroactively.

Beware the laws you make NOW!! Can attack your family in the future.This is for the law makers who like to get feel good votes

Here we have a R, back handedly attacking a D federal unionist pension payout. Again the child molester is used as a tool to impose affirmative restraint by law. INTENT is again exposed. “Was in prison for a ….crime” was embraced by ALL 51 in 1994 with the same intent. It is dead headed to permit a retiring FEDERAL JUDGE to get a pension for failing to uphold the plain meaning of the words Contained in Art. 1, sec. 9-10! Mr. Kennedy’s ” ignorance plea” in NC V PACKINGHAM notwithstanding the smell test. There can be nothing ambigious, nor non culpable in congressional actions that overthrow JUDICIAL sole job to impose commitments to states Department of Corrections, Department of Public Safety for wrongdoing.

There are plenty of commentors on the site parrotting the use of BS statistics to include claiming that the reoffense rate of ”93%” and ”nearly 100%”. We should take the time to re-educate them by posting real verifiable stats with links to correct them.

Geez, here we go again…”convicted pedophiles.” Really?

5 U.S.C § 8312 ( lists the offenses which prohibit an employee *and their survivors and/or beneficiaries*(!) from receiving a pension. The crimes are all pretty much tied to espionage, treason, sabotage, insurrection against the United States, improper sharing or intentional loss of certain highly classified documents, etc. So now conviction of a sexual offense rises to the same level as treason and sedition? Wow.

That said, that one could lose a pension for criminal acts *with a nexus to one’s position* isn’t wholly objectionable to me. This case would apply. His job as a physician created a nexus where he was readily able to abuse. However suppose instead of a physician, he was a physicist. In this case, there would be no nexus between his position and his crime. IOW, he didn’t leverage his position to indulge in or facilitate the criminal behavior. Even then, I would say one losing 100% of the pension is wrong, and applying it retroactively is likewise wrong. Perhaps loss of pension while incarcerated and a lifetime prorating of the pension percentage, taking off the number of years incarcerated from years of service. Something along that line could–COULD–be palatable. As a side question, what would happen if the person manages to get pardoned? Does s/he then get to start receiving it? Retroactive? Still SOL?

You know what, let’s just go the other route and say that any federal employee ever convicted of any offense loses his/her pension. Let’s expect perfection out of public servants. And we could also really achieve some cost savings, especially if we also ban them from other federal benefits like housing, SSA, SNAP, etc. Good thing we’re a forgiving culture….

It won’t pass. Theres no way singling out sex crimes for denial of a duly earned pension would pass muster with courts no matter how backwards the laws are.

They already have laws that deny other Federal benefits to anyone convicted of a sex offense, like housing benefits. Those things are different though, as they are denying something which the person doesn’t already have.

In this case (or Social Security) they would be taking away something that the person already has an financial stake in. If a person fulfills his/her contract and retires, then that pension money is theirs (even if they can’t draw on it yet.) They have a financial stake in it. They earned it. To change the rules after the fact would be much harder than deny future benefits.

That said, just because a law would be unconstitutional doesn’t necessarily stop them from enacting it. They do that all the time and then force us to challenge it in court. We get to spend millions trying to win a case, and then maybe get pennies back in the end.

Unfortunately just because it would be illegal doesn’t mean they can’t get it done. Start the phone calls now.

How does prohibiting someone from receiving their retirement help anyone? If the individual is down on their luck, they typically act out? Why don’t they prohibit illegal aliens from receiving federal assistance? This proposal is baseless, useless and nonsense!

Very well stated USA, nice to see real contribution. We all still have open arms for a fellow registrant, just never say or think you are superior to anyone on this site, and be respectful and it is all good my freind…

So right Josh, I myself have been incredibly wrong on millions of occasions and I welcome any constructive feedback and to even be proven wrong, that way I can advance my knowledge and be better prepared if and when needed.

This will affect me. I served the US govt for 17 years. I don’t want to work until I am 85. I thought I would have a small pension. And you know this will pass. No one will vote to save the pensions of sex offenders. And then no one will sue in court because nobody cares for sex offenders. Every day I think of killing myself. And this brings it closer. I am trying so hard to live a life. And they keep taking away everything.