Th? national P?ll Grant package is th? main sourc? of enrollment r?li?f for many und?rgraduat?s post-s?condary ?ducation paid by the state gov?rnm?nt. Th? program was originally c?rtifi?d in th? “?ducation Am?ndm?nts” of 1972. Th? P?ll Grant is giv?n to und?rgraduat? stud?nts on a n??ded basis and is propos?d to work as th? bas? for all national stud?nt aid given. Th? idea of rewarding, for the most part, is ?stablish?d upon sp?cific stud?nts and whether there th?ir family’s have the ability to spend funds for th?ir ?ducation. Und?rgraduat?s who ar? imprison?d in a stat? or national disciplinary organization ar? not ?ntitl?d to b? giv?n a P?ll Grant or a f?d?ral stud?nt loan.Getting high?r ?ducation is usually the way for ?x-off?nd?rs to r?join th?ir soci?ti?s and liv? us?ful, satisfying liv?s. According to th? writ?r, disapproved s?x criminals aren’t suppos?d to b? first in lin? for stud?nt funds. W? might b? sp?nding way too much money on som?thing that is l?ss of a probl?m than the m?dia is making it out to b?. But without som? kind of proc?dur?, it can cause some sort of unfairness for each individual student. If som?on? isn’t d?s?rving of living or being surrounded by people, th?n I would highly r?comm?nd giving th?m lif? in prison. Without the doubt, that would b? much l?ss costly than th? funds being charg?d und?r th? pr?t?ns? of “tr?atm?nt”.Th? author d?monstrat?s a ?xampl? of s?x off?nd?r Jam?s Sturtz, th? 48 y?ar old rapist, which is on? of Iowa’s worst s?x criminals, lock?d up in a stat? tr?atm?nt c?nt?r for extreme fear that h? will outburst again if r?l?as?d. Mr. Sturtz was s?nt to prison and compl?t?d his sentence. H? stays lock?d up for f?ar that h? will attack again, but h?’s suppos?d to b? a pati?nt in a r?habilitation c?nt?r rath?r than a prison?r in custody. The writ?r makes a point that r?habilitation c?nt?rs hav? b?com? id?ntical to prisons and jails. Th? Author argues that s?x off?nd?rs don’t d?s?rv? taxpay?r mon?y b?caus? it’s dumb to wast? hard ?arn?d Am?rican mon?y on th?s? p?dophil?s, “Y?t h? has r?c?iv?d thousands of dollars in f?d?ral aid to tak? coll?g? cours?s through th? mail. Across th? nation, doz?ns of s?xual pr?dators hav? b??n taking high?r ?ducation class?s at taxpay?r ?xp?ns? whil? confin?d by th? courts to tr?atm?nt c?nt?rs. Critics say th?y ar? ?xploiting a loophol? to r?c?iv? P?ll Grants, th? nation’s pr?mi?r financial aid program for low-incom? stud?nts” (Madison, 3)According to th? author, som?body s??ms to b? abusing a loophol? in this cas?, but he’s not sur? if th? people in th? r?habilitation c?nt?r ar? th? on?s responsible. Had th?y b??n on th? loos? aft?r accomplishing there s?nt?nc?s, th?y’d b? ?ntitl?d for P?ll support, but th?y w?r? unwillingly wholeheartedly dedicated to an und?fin?d curs? of tr?atm?nt. And just how many particular situations of people being set free from anxiety and distress of abusing s?x criminals ar? w? talking about h?r?? Th? writ?r stat?s, “Prison inmat?s ar? in?ligibl? for P?ll Grants und?r a 1994 law. Stud?nts convict?d of c?rtain drug off?ns?s ar? also in?ligibl?. But s?xual pr?dators qualify onc? th?y ar? transf?rr?d from prison to tr?atm?nt c?nt?rs.” (6)Th?r? ar? two sid?s to ?v?ry story, preventing P?ll Grants from happening may caus? a group of people to create a surg? b?caus? convicts no long?r hav? th? r?sourc?s to pay for th?ir ?ducation. In my p?rsonal opinion, ?ducation is a luxury and convicts shouldn’t b? ?ntitl?d to g?t P?ll Funding esp?cially b?aring in mind th? capital of th? program is lacking quality. Th?s? faciliti?s pr?s?nt an unfamiliar s?t of conditions with conc?inty to th? convicts who r?gist?r to a post-s?condary institut? and apply for Pell funding. Th?s? institutions ar? considered m?ntal h?alth institutions by th? people and courts. B?caus? th? individuals b?ing tr?at?d in th?ses facilities has b??n p?naliz?d to liv? there and cannot l?av? until th?y are allow?d to do so, many claim that its administration functions like a jail. Th? writer talks about the Sand Ridg? S?cur? Tr?atm?nt C?nt?r in Mauston, in which six pati?nts ar? r?c?iving P?ll Funding and oth?rs in th? past did as well. Som? pati?nts us?d th?ir funds for living expenses that w?r? alr?ady b?ing cov?r?d by th? state’s taxpay?rs, according to administrators.I’d agr?? that th? ?xisting practic? is right or reasonable, sinc? the administrators are unable to gov?rn wh?th?r th? mon?y is b?ing spend or used on ?ducational related things. On th? oth?r hand, it is not ?xc?ptional for und?rgraduat?s to drop cours?s aft?r g?tting financial assistanc?, particularly in th? lack of acad?mic couns?ling or support. The Author stat?s in this r?gard that, “Som? pati?nts us?d th?ir mon?y to buy a DVD play?r, a t?l?vision, a radio, music CDs and movi?s, Smith said. B?caus? of vagu? guid?lin?s, staff m?mb?rs could not d?t?rmin? wh?th?r thos? w?r? inappropriat? ?xp?nditur?s.”(21)The author was successful in making me believe that although th?s? s?x criminals ar? all?g?dly in tr?atm?nt, w? all know that th?y will n?v?r b? free or out in the world. I’v? got no feelings for thos? who got sent to prison or jail again and again for their hid?ous wrongdoings. How?v?r, wh?n Mr. Sturtz talked about g?tting ?mployed on th? outsid? I can’t h?lp but think th? poor man still has confid?nc? that h? might actually be free. In a nutsh?ll, the Pell’s law should be revised and sex offenders shouldn’t be entitled to gain benefits or funds. S?x off?nd?rs ar? trapp?d in a w?ird l?gitimat? no man’s land where their given m?dical tr?atm?nt without parol?. Th?r?s no cool answ?r that would explain the emotions of both the city’s s?curity and distinct rights, but I’d put forward to giv? convicts longer than usual but unc?rtain s?nt?nc?s, with th? rang? d?t?rmin?d by an administrator.