Bernie Madoff gets 150 years in prison

[rangoth]

Originally Posted by tjac

The crimes are called "white collar" because they are committed by professionals who intentionally abuse their professional (fiduciary) capacities. I suppose a plumber who defrauds a customer would be committing a "blue collar" crime

Anyway, the collar color doesn't distinguish fraud from rape. The physical contact does. Both crimes' damages can still be measured in dollars, so they're not as "inherently different" or incomparable as you're making them out to be.

I am not a lawyer of any kind(e-version or normal)....but I would personally view crimes against a person physical in nature are different from those of other means(stealing money). That's a tangent though a bit...

I am glad with his sentence. I do believe "examples" can act as a good deterrent from future crime. It will not stop everyone, obviously not. However if knew you'd only get(making up a number) 10 years, would you rob people of billions if you had the ability? I know I would. To me it's a simple matter of math and logic. But if you know you'll get (essentially) life in prison...you WILL die in there, that might stop me and it might stop others.

Hate to use this example but getting your hand cut off for stealing. Whether you believe that is right or wrong, you still must admit you would think a little harder about stealing if it meant you would lose a fucking paw!

Anyway the entire situation was horrible and it got complicated by having it exposed at the worst fucking possible time. Economic times are rough, people are pissed in general about "wall street" stealing from the little man and then boom, this shit hits. I think the sentence given was the best possible with our legal system so whatever. Maybe the people he stole from were "dumb" or whatever was said in some posts above, but that doesn't make his actions any more legal(or right but that's a bit more subjective so lets stick with legal).

In my little Marktopia(TM!) perfect world he wouldn't be in prison, he would have every single asset left seized, liquidated and then however much was left would be divided amongst his victims so they each get(although maybe small) a percentage of their money back. I would then let him fend for himself after that. But I am a fucked up kind of dreamy idealist so ignore the last paragraph.

[tjac]

Originally Posted by rangoth

I am not a lawyer of any kind...

I do believe "examples" can act as a good deterrent from future crime...

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to figure this out. From your own experience you probably have noticed that there is a threshold of anger, greed, intoxication, etc. that once crossed, deterrents have no effect.

[rangoth]

Originally Posted by tjac

I don't think you need to be a lawyer to figure this out. From your own experience you probably have noticed that there is a threshold of anger, greed, intoxication, etc. that once crossed, deterrents have no effect.

Yes of course, but deterrents are not 100%...they never will be. If someone truely wants to do something(a crime) they will do it. Whethers its a logical risk vs. reward, crime of passion, or whatever.

But deterrents DO help. They help the keep the sane(ish) people who are on edge due to some circumstance from crossing the line because they might lose a limb/their family/their lifestyle/their hope. You feel desperate and know that nothing too bad will happen to you if you steal to say...provide for your family, you might do it. But if getting locked up meant 150 years in prison, you might not.

Crazies will be crazies, we cannot make our society and community based on dealing with them. We should simply adapt to those situations when they present themselves, handle them as a "one-off" and treat the rest of society at a sane and normal "baseline"

[tjac]

Originally Posted by rangoth

But if getting locked up meant 150 years in prison, you might not...

No one lives even close to 150 years. There is no real deterrent in the length of the term. In Madoff's case, it's barely a punishment; he's 71 and life expectancy is 78.

I'm not sure how you effectively punish a Madoff and establish a deterrent...imprison his children for the balance of the sentence that he does not live to serve?

[Cad]

Originally Posted by tjac

No one lives even close to 150 years. There is no real deterrent in the length of the term. In Madoff's case, it's barely a punishment; he's 71 and life expectancy is 78.

I'm not sure how you effectively punish a Madoff and establish a deterrent...imprison his children for the balance of the sentence that he does not live to serve?

Personally I'd like to see people sentenced to hard labor rather than just confinement, especially for the people confined for what amounts to the rest of their lives. Simply sitting in a cage for 7-10 years doesn't begin to atone for what some of these people did.

[Salshun]

Originally Posted by Warrian

I'd rather get raped than lose my life's savings. Fuck you assholes.

I can agree to that. I'd rather be driving my car to my house with a sore ass, than homeless with an intact one.

[tjac]

Originally Posted by Cad

Personally I'd like to see people sentenced to hard labor rather than just confinement, especially for the people confined for what amounts to the rest of their lives. Simply sitting in a cage for 7-10 years doesn't begin to atone for what some of these people did.

Maybe something like that. Although for an old man, hard labor could only shorten the time he has to serve, but if hard work leading to death is the goal... I take it you're not too concerned about rehabilitation, either?

[Soriak]

Originally Posted by Cad

Personally I'd like to see people sentenced to hard labor rather than just confinement

Sure, the state can save money on construction. Of course that means there is an incentive to sentence people to hard labor - and up go the sentences for everything, including non-violent crimes. There are already enough lobbyists of private prison facilities in DC (and they profit handsomely from the WoD), don't need to add more to that bunch.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by tjac

Maybe something like that. I take it you're not too concerned about rehabilitation, either?

If someone can show me that it works, sure. My crim law prof was a parole board member for 10 years, and she was of the opinion that rehabilitation is complete nonsense. She had to quit the board out of a crisis of conscience the second time someone they paroled had murdered again within 2 months of being paroled.

[Cad]

Originally Posted by Soriak

Sure, the state can save money on construction. Of course that means there is an incentive to sentence people to hard labor - and up go the sentences for everything, including non-violent crimes. There are already enough lobbyists of private prison facilities in DC (and they profit handsomely from the WoD), don't need to add more to that bunch.

You act like sentences aren't already absurdly high and then knocked down to nothing by the overcrowded prison system. If that weren't the case, I'd agree with you.

[Arbitrary]

Originally Posted by tjac

No one lives even close to 150 years. There is no real deterrent in the length of the term. In Madoff's case, it's barely a punishment; he's 71 and life expectancy is 78.

I'm not sure how you effectively punish a Madoff and establish a deterrent...imprison his children for the balance of the sentence that he does not live to serve?

It is not a deterrent for him, it is a deterrent for everyone else. White collar criminals have historically received much smaller punishments even though their crimes can cause great damage. To have a situation in which someone got the maximum possible penalty like this is pretty amazing.

Not that I put anything behind deterrence. As far as theory goes I'd stick it in the back of the bus.

[rangoth]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

It is not a deterrent for him, it is a deterrent for everyone else. White collar criminals have historically received much smaller punishments even though their crimes can cause great damage. To have a situation in which someone got the maximum possible penalty like this is pretty amazing.

Not that I put anything behind deterrence. As far as theory goes I'd stick it in the back of the bus.

While we disagree on the effectiveness of it, that is what I meant. Seeing that you could get locked up for literally life(maybe parole but whatever) you might think twice about doing shit....maybe.

Anyway I also agree with Cad, instead of locking people up and having them just sit around I like prison work programs also. They get my vote.

[Arbitrary]

It's not a bad idea on paper but it would suffer from the same criticisms it did decades prior. As long as blacks are half the prison population and 6.2% of the country's population to institute such work camps would amount to institutional slavery. And don't forget the Mexican/Latino population.

What we need to do is divide up the current prison population between people we are willing to blow 30k a year to house and people we aren't willing to blow 30k a year to house and then after we've made that distinction go and take a look at the laws that put them there in the first place. What we've got going on now are the consequences of voters going with Tough on Crime candidates for thirty years and the laws that followed their election to office. I don't like it one bit.

[tjac]

Originally Posted by Arbitrary

White collar criminals have historically received much smaller punishments even though their crimes can cause great damage. To have a situation in which someone got the maximum possible penalty like this is pretty amazing.

Not that I put anything behind deterrence. As far as theory goes I'd stick it in the back of the bus.

So it's really about satisfying the people's need for justice -- finally a white collar crook had the book thrown at him?

Anyway, if you had a chance at becoming a billionaire, would you risk the rest of your life in jail? If you decline, is it really the jail time that makes you refuse the risk?

[Arbitrary]

Would I risk jail time to become a billionaire? Now there is a question.

I would go with no. If I began engaging in criminal enterprise, regardless of the color of the collar, with a legitimate opportunity to become a billionaire than to do so would likely destroy who I am now in the process. I am quite fond of who I am at the moment and I would have to put up not only my freedom but my very identity. The who that I am would almost certainly be destroyed and that is too steep a price. If the future me is unable to obtain joy from simple solitude and a cup of tea and some nerdly gaming than what have I gained? Fuck that arrogant prick. He can eat out my ass if he thinks I'm letting him have a billion dollars. Goddamn criminal cunt rag.