No aid for druggies - murderers and rapists are ok, though...

Back in 1998, President Clinton signed a bill that has been controversial pretty much from the start. It was intended to dissuade students from using drugs by preventing them from getting financial aid if they were convicted on drug charges, but the way it's been administered has resulted in many people who had - as President Bush described his own possible drug use - "youthful indiscretions" being unable to get any kind of financial aid, and unable to attend college. Even the author of the law - Rep Mark Souder [R-IN] contends that the way it's being applied has nothing to do with how it was intended to be used - and he has said that he believes there are "lawsuits to be had here" over the way it's been handled.

The apparent logic at the root of the bill is the idea that if tax payers are paying for someone's education, they should be out doing drugs. The problem is that the law only applies to drug offenses. Individuals who have been convicted of other crimes, including murder, rape, armed robbery or any number of other severe offenses, have no restrictions place on their ability to get financial aid.

After serving almost 10 years in prison for attempted murder, Jason Bell went straight to college on federal grants and loans. Now a senior at San Francisco State University, he helps other ex-convicts enroll in the university but often has the hardest time assisting drug offenders whose crimes were minor, certainly a lot less serious than his.

"It's a form of double jeopardy," said Mr. Bell, 32. "They do the time, but then there are still roadblocks when they finish. I don't believe people should be punished twice."

In other words, someone convicted on one occasion for having a small amount of marijuana in their possession is ineligible to receive financial aid - in some cases only for a year (but if you can't afford to pay for that first year of school, you can't ever make it to your second year when your eligibility would be restored) - but someone who was convicted of murder and released could get aid with no problem. There's just something wrong about that.

There are, apparently, efforts underway to try and "fix" the law, but it's not clear if they'll really be much better than the current system.

Under President Bush's language, anyone who violated drug laws before going to college could get financial aid, regardless of the offense. That would be in keeping with Mr. Bush's philosophy, as laid out in his State of the Union address, that "when the gates of the prison open, the path ahead should lead to a better life."

But those already in college when they commit a drug offense, however small, would still be stripped of aid, for at least a year. The idea, supporters say, is to continue trying to dissuade students from using drugs, especially since they are being educated with taxpayer money.

The problem, detractors say, is that the law would still impose stiffer penalties on drug use than on any other crime.

It's not a bad idea to try and dissuade people from committing criminal offenses. But using a law with such a blatant double standard - creating an extra punishment for drug users that doesn't exist for other criminals - doesn't serve society well. If this is being done to prevent crime, then it should target criminals in general, regardless of what kind of crime they committed.

More importantly, though, is that punishing criminals of any kind by making it harder to get an education is likely to be counterproductive. Education can be a key factor in turning someone who has committed crimes in their past into contributing members of society, and by helping people develop more marketable skills - making them more employable - education can also help reduce the chance that an individual will live in poverty. That right there can do a lot to reduce crime.

Rather than making superficial changes that don't really address the problems the law contains, the law should be scrapped as a whole. Find other ways to try and deter crime, without taking away what - for many people - is the best hope they've got of turning their lives around.

Posted by thorswitch at March 13, 2004 09:01 AM | TrackBack