While reading a recent headline that Mr. Madoff may receive life in prison for running the second largest Ponzi scheme in the US (Social Security is the largest), I wondered why do we put non-violent criminals in prison?
If I am a victim of Mr. Madoff, how am I better off by having him in prison? Wouldn’t a better solution involve some type of restitution where he pays me rather than my tax dollars paying to house / feed / support him?
In my opinion, we place too many people in prison, especially for crimes that involve no victim (e.g., drug possession) and crimes that are not violent (e.g., theft).
In an ideal world, Madoff would be mowing the lawns and cleaning the toilets of every one of his victims, every day for the rest of his natual life. Seems like a fair punishment.
David is correct, he’ll never pay anything back. OJ Simpson lost his civil suit for 30 million or whatever crazy amount, but he was still out golfing. Bet Mr. Goldman would have rather won the criminal case and saw the juice rotting in prison ( oh wait, the dumbass ended up there anyways).
While reading a recent headline that Mr. Madoff may receive life in prison for running the second largest Ponzi scheme in the US (Social Security is the largest), I wondered why do we put non-violent criminals in prison?
If I am a victim of Mr. Madoff, how am I better off by having him in prison? Wouldn’t a better solution involve some type of restitution where he pays me rather than my tax dollars paying to house / feed / support him?
In my opinion, we place too many people in prison, especially for crimes that involve no victim (e.g., drug possession) and crimes that are not violent (e.g., theft).
A few thoughts come to mind:
He (or his close family) likely has assets that the government either can’t legally take or doesn’t know about. So I imagine he would find a way to live a nice life outside of prison even if the government took all of his stuff and his bank accounts.
Such light punishment would give others the incentive to try the same thing.
How much of the $50B did some of these investors get back? Yes, he should be sent to prison, but many “innocent” people made a lot of money off of good old Bernie over the years.
If he was not punished by prison for the rest of his life, and instead worked hard and didn’t keep any money, how would he be different than 80% (or more) of the world? Indeed, he has not shown any skills whatsoever (besides potentially great con skills) that would allow him to make anywhere NEAR the money he absconded with.
He is going to die in prison as a deterrent to other potential ponzi artists. He did way more damage to our economy that we can even imagine.
Blue collar crime, so he’ll probably be in a very minimal prison. It’s like going to camp as a kid. No fences, no locks…he’ll have WiFi, free meals. It will be pretty rosey like Martha’s time in the slammer.
I’m hoping he’ll come around and discuss the details about how the system is broke. Just like a theif turns into a security consultant. Maybe he can help our government hide some funds.
Most important…the payback?
While people are going after Madoff, remember that he was PAYING OUT MONEY for nearly 15 years. While some people lost their asses, they are many more which MADE A LOT OF MONEY over the same period of time. Therefore, the actual lose is undetermined. To make matters even stickier, evidence is that Madoff did not invest ANY of the money!!! Freaky. So, this really is not a SEC situation and I’d be REALLY REALLY pissed off if federal securities funds/insurance are used to cover this as the SEC should not be involved.
Hate to say it, but I don’t think the people who loss their cash are owed anything. It’s just like me returning the email from the Prince Eli Jamaal from the Island of Buga who needs a wire transfer of 1,000,0000 Euros and I’ll receive a pot of gold. I think the people who were paid out need to return the money, not Madoff. He paid it out (while keeping a bit for himself, of course). While it’s easy to point the blame on Madoff, my guy tells me that its “only right” to collect everyone’s money.
Deterrence. Spending a couple of mil keeping him in prison might save billions down the track when it makes some bloke contemplating a similar scheme think again.
Incapacitation by incarceration. He is highly unlike to be a recidivist offender, even if he were not imprisoned. Limited effectiveness here.
Retributive theory. This is simply about punishing someone who has done something wrong. AKA Just dessert.
I don’t disagree that non-violent criminals should be punished, I just don’t think prison is the correct answer. Even if the person can not fully restore his victim, partially repayment is better than nothing.
I hope your third point is an emotional response and not the result of a well-thought remedy to the situation.
In terms of “light punishment” I disagree. If I steal from someone my punishment should be at the very least to repay what I stole and probably some additional consideration for the victim (e.g., if I steal $10,000 my punishment should be to repay $15,000). This seems appropriate for the crime.
One thing that seems to be lost in this discussion is the Bernie Madoff had a lot of help in pulling his scheme off. He had staff that had to have some indication of the nature of the business. Evidently some of his family members were knowledgeable of his operations. Many financial advisors encouraged their clients to invest in Bernie’s venture. Many individuals and institutions were willing to part with their money for Bernie’s promised return. And the SEC did not follow up an reports about the scheme the Bernie was running (another reason to abolish the SEC - it is not effective).
So, if Bernie ends up in prison, what should happen to the other participants? Or, as you point out, was there even a crime here as people willingly gave their money to Mr. Madoff without doing due diligence which would have raised red flags (as it did for some)?