Wal-Mart caves to SCs, allows them to get cartloads of "free"groceries

[Sleepwalker]

It's pretty hard for someone without a severe disability/mental illness to actually starve in the US. End up homeless/possession less because of the financial hit by going without stamps for however long? Yeah. But actual, no joke starvation is hard.

[s_stabeler]

I agree with Rapscallion, actually. It seems pretty harsh. Especially as it could easily hurt people innocent of wrongdoing. (I'm talking about if they have kids here, although an SO is also likely to be innocent of wrongdoing) so sure, the person committing fraud deserves to go hungry. But if they have kids? those kids don't deserve to go hungry- THEY had no choice in the matter.

[Andara Bledin]

Kids still get SNAP, even if their guardians are barred from the program. It has to go through another party, but the kids aren't kicked because their guardian's are scamming assholes.

[s_stabeler]

that's good, but how does that work? sure, another party spends the money, but how do you prevent (for example) the parents from getting the food, instead of the kids. Because I can see the kind of entitled twat that it takes to do this pulling some crap like trying to get the food themselves.

it also doesn't answer the question about other people in the same household, like an SO. Sure, they have a bit more influence over the one who actually committed the fraud, but ti's still kinda unfair on them to have to go hungry.

[EricKei]

Raps- Perhaps. If I read it correctly, that punishment is a Federal requirement. Basically, the idea is that the vast majority of FS recipients will choose not to commit fraud for fear of losing the benefits for an extended period of time, I suppose.

SS: You have a point. Once the food leaves the store, there's not much anyone can do. Heck, "selling" food stamps for cash is still alive and well in this day and age, despite their being done on debit cards now. I'm not totally sure how, as stores normally just put credit for any such returns right back onto the card these days. Best guess would be that they just drain the card by buying items that sell well on the black market (like baby food), sell them for cash, then use that for other things.

[Rapscallion]

I would imagine that starvation comes under cruel and unusual punishment, and I believe that's against something in the constitution?

Rapscallion

[HYHYBT]

It is. But the punishment is not starvation per se, but the removal of a benefit which is one of many ways of acquiring food. What would you do instead?

[Rapscallion]

I suggested when I first considered this awkward that jail time or community service - you know, like the usual western judicial service uses for other crimes where people aren't killed?

Rapscallion

[bara]

I still think Wal-Mart should have to pay for it.

[ebonyknight]

I would imagine that starvation comes under cruel and unusual punishment, and I believe that's against something in the constitution?

Maybe it's semantics issue, but I agree with sleepwalker. It is extremely hard to starve in US. Going to bed "hungry", is a different matter, but I wouldn't go so far as to say anyone starves here.

There is also quite an abuse of [insert your local card name here] where people sell them, only buy junk food or other things they weren't intended for. When you abuse the system, there are no guarantees, nor should there be.

[s_stabeler]

I still disagree that kicking them off completely is a good idea- especially the permanant bar. it seems extreme, especially since it DOES seem to be cruel and unusual punishment- especially since it is going to affect their ability to work, assuming they have a job ( through worry over where their next meal is coming from)

[HYHYBT]

I suggested when I first considered this awkward that jail time or community service - you know, like the usual western judicial service uses for other crimes where people aren't killed?

Rapscallion

Oops. Sorry.

[EricKei]

Raps -- If this is like many other nonviolent offense, it's certainly possible that they may be able to work off the time, if the judge and prosecutor are willing to listen, in exchange for a Guilty plea (at the below-state level, the overwhelming majority of "convictions" are Guilty pleas/plea bargains anyway).

SS -- At least for the perma-ban, it takes a lot. I think the general idea is for people consciously abusing the system to get that punishment (meaning, those who are not using the card for food, but for plain old cash money profit by SELLING food at black market prices to those who are desperate)...It would not surprise me if (a) bans of any kind are so rare as to be newsworthy, and (b) these folks get little more than a slap on the wrist.

One significant factor here -- While I really don't doubt that the (relatively few) people who god free food out of this knew damn well that what they were doing was illegal, a large part of the blame also falls upon Walmart Corporate: To the best of my understanding, they instructed the managers who called them to allow these transactions to go through. Neither side is innocent, here. The issue is, I don't know of any real punishment that can be made to WM aside from yanking their right to accept foodstamps in the first place, which would devastate their grocery sales business. Also, they're WM. They -- and their legal team -- can pretty much decide which laws they feel like having apply to them.

[Canarr]

I still think Wal-Mart should have to pay for it.

According to the article, they do have to pay for it - the retailers who accepted the cards beyond their max limit will not be compensated for the difference, so they're eating the cost.

[Rapscallion]

Raps -- If this is like many other nonviolent offense, it's certainly possible that they may be able to work off the time, if the judge and prosecutor are willing to listen, in exchange for a Guilty plea (at the below-state level, the overwhelming majority of "convictions" are Guilty pleas/plea bargains anyway).

Aye, but it's not got to a judge. It's the department that gives this stuff out discontinuing giving it out - no judiciary involved unless I missed it.

Going to be a bit hard to get a lawyer to assist you on this if you're more concerned with where your next meal is coming from.

Rapscallion