3

Convicted of a violent crime? Senate proposes food stamp cutoff

A sign in a market window advertises the acceptance of food stamps in New York City.

Congress is on recess this week, but when they return one of the first things they'll turn to is the farm bill. And one of the biggest items in it is the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), better known as food stamps.  

Last week Senators quietly agreed to a small amendment with big implications. The proposal would deny food stamps to anyone convicted of certain violent and serious crimes -- for their entire lives.  

Republican Senator David Vitter of Louisiana warned against what he called an "entitlement mentality gone wild" in proposing the restriction against criminals convicted of violent rape, pedophilia, and murder.   

Vitter said there's a misconception that there's already a food stamp ban against that group. “In fact,” he said, “the only ban that exists is for drug felons.” 

Many anti-hunger activists say the ban against giving nutrition assistance to drug felons has been disastrous, and they worry about widening it.

Celia Cole is with the Texas Food Bank Network. She cites research that shows convicted felons denied food assistance, once they're released, have higher rates of HIV, and higher rates of returning to crime and back to prison. 

“Anyone that has done a prison term faces serious challenges when they come back out,” says Cole. She adds, “when people can't afford food for themselves or their families, it undermines their ability to avoid making the same mistakes all over again.” 

Other opponents of the amendment point out that African Americans have higher incarceration rates, and a broader food stamp ban could hit their communities hard.  

About the author

Krissy Clark is the senior reporter for Marketplace’s Wealth & Poverty Desk.
Log in to post3 Comments

I'm sorry, I must not have read that right.

Did you REALLY play the race card as an argument to defend giving assistance to rapists and murderers?

Some of the arguments here sound a bit like paying criminals not to offend again. Sort of like "give me your lunch money, and I won't punch you in the nose."

As for their children, perhaps children would be better off if they were NOT raised by rapists, pedophiles and murderers.

This question should never come up. A violent criminal should never be let out of prison. When we do release a prisoner we should feel that reformation has occurred and the persons rights should be restored. If we don't feel the prisoner has reformed and could still be a threat, then they should not be released.

What about the children of these ex-convicts? The children didn't commit a crime.

With Generous Support From...