Balancing justice for famlies, taxpayers

Anybody who believes crime doesn't pay isn't paying attention.
The latest example comes from Los Angeles where a veteran building inspector sentenced to prison last month in an FBI corruption case will continue to receive his pension. His take: $72,000 a year. That's $6,030 a month plus a monthly health care subsidy of $1,469.
Samuel In, 66, last year admitted he took more than $30,000 in bribes while working as a senior inspector. He was sentenced to 2 1/2 years in prison but only after a federal prosecutor argued against leniency and mentioned his "substantial" pension.
How, you ask, can a convicted felon keep a public pension, especially if the charges stem from the person's discharge of his/her public duties?
Sometimes they can't, at least it's harder than it used to be. Two years ago, Gov. Jerry Brown signed legislation requiring public employees convicted of a felony to give up retirement benefits earned during the period when their crimes were committed.
That law doesn't apply in Los Angeles because it operates under a voter-approved charter and manages its own pension system. Some council members are making noise about changing the LA system, but In's attorney said his client "earned that pension" during his 37 years of public service and he did a lot of volunteer work.
Frankly, you have to ask how many other bribes he took while he was serving the public and volunteering.
The argument In's attorney made is the usual plea. That argument is often coupled with plea for leniency because without the pension the innocent spouse and children will be left destitute.
The innocent family argument surfaced most recently in the case of Army Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, 51, who faced sexual assault charges involving a junior officer. Prosecutors urged the military judge to dismiss the general -- a move that would have sent a clear message through the ranks about the seriousness of the case. Sinclair's attorneys argued the general should be allowed to retire, so he could keep his pension (an estimated $831,000 if he lives to be 82). To do otherwise would punish his family, they said.
Sinclair was spared any jail time, was fined $20,000 (plus $4,160 restitution for unauthorized credit card use) and reprimanded. He said he plans to retire.
Moves are afoot, at least in the military, to protect innocent family members when a service member is convicted of a crime or is otherwise ejected from the military and loses pension benefits. Congress in January ordered the Pentagon to study the feasibility of providing "transitional benefits" to families in these cases. That study, due out next month, is to consider such issues as how long such benefits might last and who qualifies.
That's a start. Certainly punishment should not be visited on innocent family members. But certainly taxpayers should not be asked to pay the pensions of public officials when they stand convicted of crimes directly related to their public duties.