Should people convicted of a crime get government assistance?

Bob, you know my opinion on welfare here in the US, and I stand by it. Welfare for the poor isn't even a tenth of corporate welfare. If you want to may the poor jump through all of these hoops, than you should also have the CEO's of corporations do the same thing. Both welfare programs involve tax payer dollars going to certain groups, and I agree that if you don't meet these criteria than you shouldn't get money. Of course on the corporate level you would have to add certain parts, like NOT sending any money overseas. NOT hiding your income in foreign corporations thus committing tax evasion. If you were to enact these laws, you would see corporate tax rates go up dramatically, and the government bring in much larger amounts of money, thus paying down out national debt.

They should be classified as violent criminals, what they deserve is spend a long time in federal prison and pay for their own lodging, living expenses like food, drink clothing etc.. Unless of cousce if UK law makers are sympathetic of them, then they will continue to receive state assistance and welfare so that they can spend most of their time torching cars and looting shops or even hang around the street doing nothing and harassing passer by.

Well first, they need to end government assistance to start with. But yeah, I think being convicted of anything, should automagically disqualify you from ANY form of social benefit. And NO.... ABSOLUTELY NOT. Making sure they attend school? Look... If a person is not interested in getting an education, forcing them to go to school will do nothing, but mildly educate an idiot. Educating a convict, simply makes smarter thieves. If anything, if they are convicted, they should be disqualified from getting an education unless they themselves are paying for it.

I have grown up in a small town and I know of a lot of people sapping off of tax payers. I also know people who have used welfare until they found a job. My dad had custody of my sister, brother and I and had to use welfare for a short time. I know more people who abuse welfare, than actually use it for what it was meant for. The only things that you listed that I don't fully agree should be required for welfare, are accounting for everything that was spent and I think cancelling help because of a speeding ticket or something similar is a bit much. I don't know about where you are, but the cops where I am from find any tiny reason to hand out tickets. I can understand if someone is driving wrecklessly, but everyone can get slightly distracted and end up speeding a little. Also, if someone makes mistakes and ends up in prison, but wants to start over and need a little help at first, I think most people deserve a second chance to change their ways. So as long as it is case by case and those two things factor in, I agree. As for the accounting for spent money, I would agree it would be a good idea to make sure that they are paying their rent and electricity, but I don't know about everything that is purchased. Other than those considerations, I am in full agreement with you! :)