I thought a 150-year prison term for Bernie was disproportinately large

[John Ranalletta]

But no writer expresses my thoughts better than Bill Bonner

Poor Bernie. The man has been ordered to spend 150 years in the hoosegow. What for? Who did he kill? A century and a half seems a little excessive for a financial crime. You could hold up three liquor stores and rape a whole convent and still not get 150 years. With a little bit of good lawyer-ing, a history of child abuse in the family, and good behavior in the big house, you’d be back on the street in 18 months.

[marcopolo]

Let's be honest; he didn't deserve a day over 149 years.

[John Ranalletta]

Why? It's obvious the judge took into consideration the downstream effects of the theft. It was a politically-driven sentence in the extreme.

[Selden]

Actually, it was a plea bargain; he was offered 150 years, or go free and have to walk out of the courtroom and back to his apartment.

[Dave McReynolds]

The guy is 71 years old. Any reasonable sentence he would have received would likely have been a life sentence. What difference does it make? I think what's likely to happen in the future is that as prisons began stockpiling geriatric prisoners, particularly ones who can't even move around on their own anymore, some other arrangement is going to be made for them. Most of us have heard recent stories about prisoners who can't move who have to be guarded in medical facilities around the clock as they receive treatment for some condition or another that can't be provided in the prison itself.

[SeanC]

I still believe in hanging horse thieves, a punishment that not only fit the crime -- stealing a horse meant stealing a man's livelihood, not just the market value of his horse -- but was also an effective deterrent.

 

Like horse thieves of old, Bernie Madoff stole a lot more than money. He stole livelihood. He stole people's ability to continue on with their lives in their own fashion.

 

And for that, he deserves to be hung. Sadly we don't hang horse thieves any more, so dying in prison will have to suffice. I just hope he dies in a real prison, miserable and hopeless, and not in some country club detention facility.

[smiller]

It's obvious the judge took into consideration the downstream effects of the theft.

Aside from the length of the term, isn't that a reasonable practice when determining sentencing?

[Couchrocket]

I still believe in hanging horse thieves, a punishment that not only fit the crime -- stealing a horse meant stealing a man's livelihood, not just the market value of his horse -- but was also an effective deterrent.

 

Like horse thieves of old, Bernie Madoff stole a lot more than money. He stole livelihood. He stole people's ability to continue on with their lives in their own fashion.

 

And for that, he deserves to be hung. Sadly we don't hang horse thieves any more, so dying in prison will have to suffice. I just hope he dies in a real prison, miserable and hopeless, and not in some country club detention facility.

 

+1 especially in the absence of any sort of mitigation, remorse, or attempt / offer to make restitution. His last acts were to try to hide the football, and shift assets. I'll buy the rope. He destroyed the life work, security, dignity, and independence of a lot of people, and not just "rich people."

[Joel]

Is Madoff's sentence too harsh, or have others been too lenient?

 

I know that it isn't determined this way, but it amuses me nonetheless: $65 billion ponzi scheme, divided by 150 years, equals one year of incarceration per $433.3 million in fraud. Viewed this way, I think Bernie got a hell of a deal.

[SeanC]

Like you, Scott, I'll not only buy the rope, I will set aside money from each and every paycheck I earn to buy all the other ropes to hang all the other bastards caught following a similar path.

 

I read a terrible story last week about a man in Florida who found out his ex-girlfriend had a baby of which he was not the father. In a rage, he yanked the baby from the woman's arms and threw it (him or her, I do not remember) to the pavement. He then picked up the screaming and severely injured baby and fled in his car, at which point he tossed the infant out his window and onto the freeway. A passing motorist discovered the dead infant shortly thereafter.

 

I mention this only because it struck me that labeling Madoff's actions a "financial crime" would be akin to calling the murder of that infant a "crime of passion." What Madoff did was a lot more than a financial crime.

 

I wish there were a checkbox on tax forms that said, "I wish to donate $1 to go toward buying rope and constructing gallows."

[John Ranalletta]

Actually, it was a plea bargain; he was offered 150 years, or go free and have to walk out of the courtroom and back to his apartment.

Either way, the vigilantes ruled.

[John Ranalletta]

It's obvious the judge took into consideration the downstream effects of the theft.

Aside from the length of the term, isn't that a reasonable practice when determining sentencing?

High profile victims had to be appeased and the "financial industry" needed a sacrificial lamb.

 

Would anyone have been saddened if he'd been sentenced to 75 years w/o parole. I doubt it.

[SeanC]

Actually, it was a plea bargain; he was offered 150 years, or go free and have to walk out of the courtroom and back to his apartment.

Either way, the vigilantes ruled.

So receiving the maximum sentence allowable by law, in a court of law, is an act of vigilantism?

 

I think maybe as a society we're too accustomed to nice, respectable-looking white guys receiving leniency for crimes that didn't hurt anyone physically, as if maximum sentences were just for the vulgar and violent offenders in society.

[John Ranalletta]

So receiving the maximum sentence allowable by law, in a court of law, is an act of vigilantism?

In this case, sure it is. If the victims lived in trailer courts, he'd still be a free man.

[Dave McReynolds]

Is it really that slow of a Thursday? As I said before, what difference does it make? Following Joel's point to its logical extreme, if the typical $5,000 felony would net someone 2 years, why don't we really make an example out of this guy and sentence him to 26,000,000 years in prison. And make him serve every minute of it. When his physical body dies, we will encapsulate him into a space probe and fire him off into an elliptical orbit into outer space past the boundaries of the solar system, calculated to return him to earth when his sentence expires.

[10ovr]

I still believe in hanging horse thieves, a punishment that not only fit the crime -- stealing a horse meant stealing a man's livelihood, not just the market value of his horse -- but was also an effective deterrent.

 

Like horse thieves of old, Bernie Madoff stole a lot more than money. He stole livelihood. He stole people's ability to continue on with their lives in their own fashion.

 

And for that, he deserves to be hung. Sadly we don't hang horse thieves any more, so dying in prison will have to suffice. I just hope he dies in a real prison, miserable and hopeless, and not in some country club detention facility.

+1

[SeanC]

So receiving the maximum sentence allowable by law, in a court of law, is an act of vigilantism?

In this case, sure it is. If the victims lived in trailer courts, he'd still be a free man.

 

I don't think that's true at all. If the victims lived in trailer courts, Madoff would have had to have scammed many more of them to yield the figures he was seeking. And because so many more individual crimes would have been committed, his sentence may well have been 200 years.

 

The main difference, had the victims all lived in trailer courts, is that the public at large, as well as the media, might not care as much about the victims.

[philbytx]

Screw him!

He never cooperated with the feds and so...he gets slammed BFD!

Good! Now, hopefully, his sons will get nailed in some fashion or other. They knew...something, maybe not everything, but they knew!

 

He couldn't have done this by himself....he was assisted by others within his company.

 

 

[Hermes]

Has any money or asset been reconstituted yet?

 

His wife is still enjoying the good life and continues to claim she didn't know. Right1

 

Although everybody claims ignorance to the scheme, I understand that about ten more people are being investigated for their involvement. Like duh, you think he could have done all this by himself and hide it from his corporate colleagues. Wonder who the firm's independant Auditors were?

 

In good time, the whole sordid mess will be revealed and the legal system will dole out quite a few more years to a surprising number of people.

 

You know, every time I think about this Ponzi scheme and how succesful it has been, I can't quite ignore a little twinge inside of me that says, that at least his heavy weight clients were somewhat complicit, if only by their silence and indulgence

.

I mean, don't you owe it to yourself to do the math and ask some questions, like, how can this Bernie guarantee me such consistently high returns and were are the people that loose the money I am gaining? I guess they mightn't have liked the answers, and just kept on raking in the money, hoping this gravy train never stops, JUST LIKE BERNIE was hoping, huh?

 

$0.02 US

 

Like the Flin Flan man said:

 

You can't cheat an honest man.

 

Just saying.......

[beemerman2k]

Is it really that slow of a Thursday? As I said before, what difference does it make? Following Joel's point to its logical extreme, if the typical $5,000 felony would net someone 2 years, why don't we really make an example out of this guy and sentence him to 26,000,000 years in prison. And make him serve every minute of it. When his physical body dies, we will encapsulate him into a space probe and fire him off into an elliptical orbit into outer space past the boundaries of the solar system, calculated to return him to earth when his sentence expires.

 

"Star Trek 10, Bernie and the Brokers Return!"

[Lets_Play_Two]

"You know, every time I think about this Ponzi scheme and how succesful it has been, I can't quite ignore a little twinge inside of me that says, that at least his heavy weight clients were somewhat complicit, if only by their silence and indulgence

.

I mean, don't you owe it to yourself to do the math and ask some questions, like, how can this Bernie guarantee me such consistently high returns and were are the people that loose the money I am gaining? I guess they mightn't have liked the answers, and just kept on raking in the money, hoping this gravy train never stops, JUST LIKE BERNIE was hoping, huh?"

 

Some of his early investors apparently took a LOT of money out. These people are now being investigated. It is reported down here that one of those investors "made" $5 billion!!! Stay tuned for the rest of the story.

[DavidEBSmith]

You know, every time I think about this Ponzi scheme and how succesful it has been, I can't quite ignore a little twinge inside of me that says, that at least his heavy weight clients were somewhat complicit, if only by their silence and indulgence

.

I mean, don't you owe it to yourself to do the math and ask some questions, like, how can this Bernie guarantee me such consistently high returns and were are the people that loose the money I am gaining? I guess they mightn't have liked the answers, and just kept on raking in the money, hoping this gravy train never stops, JUST LIKE BERNIE was hoping, huh?

 

$0.02 US

 

Like the Flin Flan man said:

 

You can't cheat an honest man.

 

Just saying.......

 

Surely you're not suggesting that the victims were "complicit" in that they had some actual knowledge that he was running a Ponzi scheme?

 

Surely you must mean that the victims were "complicit" in that they found a deal that was so good, it was too good to be true, and they should have investigated rather than just accept the really good return on investment?

 

So perhaps you can tell us exactly where the line is at which I should stop thinking my investment guy is really good, and I should start thinking he's running a Ponzi scheme? Because I'm unclear about what an acceptable rate of return on my investments would be, and at what point I'm guilty of something because my investments are doing too well.

[Skywagon]

I look at this a bit differently than stealing money. Bernie stole peoples health care, their homes, their children's education etc. I am going to have to pay for Bernies theft. I think his family, friends, and anyone associated with the scheme should receive similar sentences with possesions ceased and distributed much like chapter 7. Imagine the many seniors who may not have the funds to receive proper medical treatment after they fall off some corporate payroll and their benefits expire. He may have shortened many lives and has certainly altered many others.

 

If we were just to inforce the years incarceration our courts declare, we wouldn't need 200 year sentences. I don't believe in the 50 year sentence and out in 10 because you played nice in prison. 50 years should mean 50 years. Life should mean life. In Bernies case the judge did the right thing. The maximum sentence allowable will off-set any panzy soft adjustments such that he won't be out in 3 years.

 

For my belief he should have received the needle. I am only truly sad of his sentence because I have to pay to feed, clothe, and house the sorry bastard.

[Rinkydink]

Skyway, you hit the nail on the head. XX number of years equals XX number of years.

 

I feel the simple fact that Mr. Madoff pulled this scam off over many many years, warrants his treatment to be the same as any other convienence store robber etc. He was a smart, cunning and coniving manipulator preying on gullible people whether they be rich or poor. Give them the full sentence, "black jack no take back" and see if over time it puts a dent in it.

[smiller]

I'm not sure that the sentence was just about Madoff. Obviously in this case 15 years would have been just as much a life sentence as 150 but I think the judge was also trying to send a message that such offenses would be treated very harshly by the legal system. A few billion dollars is a pretty big incentive to commit such a crime and I think the intention was to point out that there's also a potentially pretty big down side.

[DaveTheAffable]

You could hold up three liquor stores and rape a whole convent and still not get 150 years

 

High profile victims had to be appeased and the "financial industry" needed a sacrificial lamb.

 

Would anyone have been saddened if he'd been sentenced to 75 years w/o parole. I doubt it.

 

As for raping the whole convent... 20 nuns, 20 years per count, that's 400 years. So, now that we're done being silly.

 

- Crimes, not one, MANY over MANY years.

- Lied to investigators not once, but MANY times.

- Numerous suicides DIRECTLY linked to his actions (which in some states can added a murder charge if it's associated with rape or mayhem)

- Sentencing guidelines

 

 

John, would you be ok with the 150 years if every rapist got 150 years?

 

Which are you upset with? The disparity in sentencing, or the fact that this judge, in this situation, followed the law, and sentenced fairly?

[John Ranalletta]

I look at this a bit differently than stealing money. Bernie stole peoples health care, their homes, their children's education etc.

No, he took their money. If a thief steals a purse containing $50, the thief will be booked on the same charge regardless the victim's social status.

 

Madoff deserves to spend the rest of his life in jail. I'm not arguing that; but, based on other cases, it just is disproportionate; and, it's is so because high society wanted and got its retribution, at least in part.

 

Here's a list of corporate crooks who scammed investors and employees who were likely a helluva lot less well heeled than Madoff's clients.

 

Michael Milken: Perhaps the most famous of all alleged insider traders was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and securities fraud and pled guilty to six after an investigation of insider trading led to other charges. (The insider-trading charge was eventually thrown out.) He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but was released after less than two.

 

Ivan Boesky was supposed to serve three years in prison for insider trading, but actually sat out only 22 months.

 

Savings & loan banker Charles Keating received a sentence of 12 and a half years for fraud, but served four and half.

 

Former Enron chief financial officer Andy Fastow earned six years for securities fraud.

 

Former Enron boss Jeff Skilling was slapped with a sentence of 24 years on 19 counts including fraud, conspiracy and insider trading.

 

Former WorldCom chief executive Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years.

 

John J. Rigas, the 80-year-old founder of Adelphia Communications: 15 years in prison for spending company money on his own extravagances, hiding more than $2.3 billion in debt and lying to investors. Rigas’s son Timothy got 20 years in prison.

 

Tyco chief executive Dennis Kozlowski and chief financial officer Mark H. Swartz were sentenced to a minimum of 8 1/3 years and a maximum of 25 years on charges of grand larceny and conspiracy, falsifying business records and violating business law.

 

In 2007, Oppenheimer & Co. director of research Bert Fingerhut was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for securities fraud related to initial public offerings.

 

Former Goldman Sachs & Co. associate Eugene Plotkin was sentenced to five years in prison for insider trading.

 

Morgan Stanley financial analyst Jennifer Wang and her husband, ING fund manager Ruben Chen, were sentenced to one-and-a-half years each for insider trading.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

I'm not upset with anything. I just don't see anything other than a visceral, emotional rationale for giving the max sentence and stated so.

 

He's going to die in prison either way, but just hope that someone who's near and dear to you doesn't appear in a court where the judge is under so much pressure to level the harshest penalty allowed, whether it makes sense or not.

 

I don't get your rape analogy, but rapists generally aren't sentenced to 150 years in prison w/o parole. Not that they shouldn't, but they aren't.

 

[DaveTheAffable]

Michael Milken: Perhaps the most famous of all alleged insider traders was indicted on 98 counts of racketeering and securities fraud and pled guilty to six after an investigation of insider trading led to other charges. (The insider-trading charge was eventually thrown out.) He was sentenced to ten years in prison, but was released after less than two.

 

Ivan Boesky was supposed to serve three years in prison for insider trading, but actually sat out only 22 months.

 

Savings & loan banker Charles Keating received a sentence of 12 and a half years for fraud, but served four and half.

 

Former Enron chief financial officer Andy Fastow earned six years for securities fraud.

 

Former Enron boss Jeff Skilling was slapped with a sentence of 24 years on 19 counts including fraud, conspiracy and insider trading.

 

Former WorldCom chief executive Bernie Ebbers was sentenced to 25 years.

 

John J. Rigas, the 80-year-old founder of Adelphia Communications: 15 years in prison for spending company money on his own extravagances, hiding more than $2.3 billion in debt and lying to investors. Rigas’s son Timothy got 20 years in prison.

 

Tyco chief executive Dennis Kozlowski and chief financial officer Mark H. Swartz were sentenced to a minimum of 8 1/3 years and a maximum of 25 years on charges of grand larceny and conspiracy, falsifying business records and violating business law.

 

In 2007, Oppenheimer & Co. director of research Bert Fingerhut was sentenced to 24 months in federal prison for securities fraud related to initial public offerings.

 

Former Goldman Sachs & Co. associate Eugene Plotkin was sentenced to five years in prison for insider trading.

 

Morgan Stanley financial analyst Jennifer Wang and her husband, ING fund manager Ruben Chen, were sentenced to one-and-a-half years each for insider trading.

 

 

 

And none of them were (to the best of my knowledge) PERSONALLY responsible for INDIVIDUALS losing EVERYTHING on the scale of Madoff. There was no "Tyco", "Enron", "Goldman Sachs", etc. ONLY Madoff. Many of the examples you quote were insured, or had SOME backing or bailout. Madoff left EVERY investor, except his own family, with nothing.

[DaveTheAffable]

But no writer expresses my thoughts better than Bill Bonner

Poor Bernie. The man has been ordered to spend 150 years in the hoosegow. What for? Who did he kill? A century and a half seems a little excessive for a financial crime. You could hold up three liquor stores and rape a whole convent and still not get 150 years. With a little bit of good lawyer-ing, a history of child abuse in the family, and good behavior in the big house, you’d be back on the street in 18 months.

...I don't get your rape analogy...

 

The rape analogy was drawn from your OP. Sometimes judges base their sentencing on "counts", and stack them. I was just poking fun at your use of, or, Bill Bonner's use of a "whole convent".

 

[Skywagon]

He should be very thankful John Gotti wasn't a client..... There is nothing a judge could do under the law that would remotely equal the pusishment he deserves.

 

And your wrong. He did steal more than money.

[MattS]

The length of the sentence is used to determine the security level of the prison to which the convicted is assigned; so for Madoff 150 years ensures he won't enjoy the so-called country club environs of low security as he has considerable incentive to escape.

 

In addition, it sets the tone and sends a strong message to the rest of the conspiracy that they're still being pursued in a vendetta kind of a way.

 

His attorneys petitioned for 12 years, which would have left him, according to the actuarial table, one year to live after his release from prison. 150 is probably a nice compromise between that and, say, the 845 years that Sholam Weiss is on the hook for. He's due to be released on November 23, 2754, on a Tuesday just two days before Thanksgiving. I'm sure he'll be hungry.

[John Ranalletta]

And none of them were (to the best of my knowledge) PERSONALLY responsible for INDIVIDUALS losing EVERYTHING on the scale of Madoff. There was no "Tyco", "Enron", "Goldman Sachs", etc. ONLY Madoff. Many of the examples you quote were insured, or had SOME backing or bailout. Madoff left EVERY investor, except his own family, with nothing.

Thanks for making my point. It's better to steal a little from a lot of people than a lot from a few.

 

Okay. I get it.

[SeanC]

Thanks for making my point. It's better to steal a little from a lot of people than a lot from a few.

 

Okay. I get it.

What's so hard to understand about that? Stealing $1 from a million people is far less a crime than stealing one man's livelihood. The former is a financial crime, the latter a capital crime. To put it another way, it's one thing to steal the food off a man's plate, but to steal a man's ability to put food on his plate, that's a hanging offense.

[randys]

I have never "gotten" the whole life sentence thing. If they are never going to be allowed out, punch their ticket and be done with it.

[Hermes]

"Because I'm unclear about what an acceptable rate of return on my investments would be, and at what point I'm guilty of something because my investments are doing too well."

 

If read correctly, I said 'consistently high returns' not acceptable. As such, your question is irrelevant in the context of my post.

 

I say this though, a savy investor after having had an exceptionally long profitable run, propped up by the inherent method of the Ponzy scheme, ought to have secured his gains. If not, his greed made him wait for the inevitable downturn, which in this case was the bursting of the Bernie Bubble, eg., Bernie's inability of continuing to grow the required exponentially expanding base of the Ponzy pyramid.

 

 

[John Ranalletta]

Thanks for making my point. It's better to steal a little from a lot of people than a lot from a few.

 

Okay. I get it.

What's so hard to understand about that? Stealing $1 from a million people is far less a crime than stealing one man's livelihood. The former is a financial crime, the latter a capital crime. To put it another way, it's one thing to steal the food off a man's plate, but to steal a man's ability to put food on his plate, that's a hanging offense.

Explains why politicians aren't jailed.

[subvet]

Thanks for making my point. It's better to steal a little from a lot of people than a lot from a few.

 

Okay. I get it.

What's so hard to understand about that? Stealing $1 from a million people is far less a crime than stealing one man's livelihood. The former is a financial crime, the latter a capital crime. To put it another way, it's one thing to steal the food off a man's plate, but to steal a man's ability to put food on his plate, that's a hanging offense.

 

I gotta agree with that. And seeing as how he stone-walled the investigation to protect his loved ones (who probably knew what was going on) they deserve to spend time behind bars if they helped in the scheme but at a minimum, deserve to spend the rest of their days in poverty. Gawd, I can't stand theives.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

I say this though, a savy investor after having had an exceptionally long profitable run, propped up by the inherent method of the Ponzy scheme, ought to have secured his gains. If not, his greed made him wait for the inevitable downturn, which in this case was the bursting of the Bernie Bubble, eg., Bernie's inability of continuing to grow the required exponentially expanding base of the Ponzy pyramid

 

The thing that shocks me is how many of Madoff's victims have lost their entire life's savings in this scheme. Apparently they have never heard the maxim "don't put all your eggs in one basket."

[smiller]

The thing that shocks me is how many of Madoff's victims have lost their entire life's savings in this scheme. Apparently they have never heard the maxim "don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Hey, why earn 20% per year on only half your money?

[4wheeldog]

The thing that shocks me is how many of Madoff's victims have lost their entire life's savings in this scheme. Apparently they have never heard the maxim "don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Hey, why earn 20% per year on only half your money?

 

I have less sympathy for the victims than most......The adage that comes to mind is "You can't cheat an honest man", followed closely by "If it sounds to good to be true, it probably is".

 

Plenty of investment experts did not put their client's money with Madoff because they could not see the evidence for how he was getting the returns he claimed.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

The thing that shocks me is how many of Madoff's victims have lost their entire life's savings in this scheme. Apparently they have never heard the maxim "don't put all your eggs in one basket."

Hey, why earn 20% per year on only half your money?

 

Everything I've been reading about investment (granted, I haven't been reading as much as some folks) is that risk is mitigated by diversification. I take diversification to mean not just investing your money in several different stocks and/or mutual funds, but investing through several different brokers/investment houses; that way, if one of them does go bankrupt or turn out to be fraudulent, you don't lose your entire life's savings.

 

Madoff's scam (and others like it) should not have been allowed to happen. But the fact is that they do, and an investor with an ounce of common sense will hedge his bets to protect against that.

[DaveTheAffable]

And none of them were (to the best of my knowledge) PERSONALLY responsible for INDIVIDUALS losing EVERYTHING on the scale of Madoff. There was no "Tyco", "Enron", "Goldman Sachs", etc. ONLY Madoff. Many of the examples you quote were insured, or had SOME backing or bailout. Madoff left EVERY investor, except his own family, with nothing.

Thanks for making my point. It's better to steal a little from a lot of people than a lot from a few.

 

Okay. I get it.

 

You have some issue here. I don't understand.

 

Be well. :-)

[ltljohn]

Please tell me he doesn't get to choose his prison.

 

Madoff Hires prison consultant to find best possible prison

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

Please tell me he doesn't get to choose his prison.

 

Madoff Hires prison consultant to find best possible prison

 

I haven't looked at the article, but man, that guy shouldn't have enough money in his possession to tip a pizza delivery guy, let alone hire a prison consultant.

 

I didn't even know "prison consultant" was a career option...

[motoguy128]

I say this though, a savy investor after having had an exceptionally long profitable run, propped up by the inherent method of the Ponzy scheme, ought to have secured his gains. If not, his greed made him wait for the inevitable downturn, which in this case was the bursting of the Bernie Bubble, eg., Bernie's inability of continuing to grow the required exponentially expanding base of the Ponzy pyramid

 

The thing that shocks me is how many of Madoff's victims have lost their entire life's savings in this scheme. Apparently they have never heard the maxim "don't put all your eggs in one basket."

 

Not to excuse the crime... but I agree the some of the victims are similarly guilty of greed. Is it a casinos fault if you bet all of your money and lose> No. Investments are still just a form of gambling, except that it's less random in its' results, but often less predictible all the same because hte vairable are constantly changing. You have to diversify to protect yoruself or risk making 1 single bad bet.

 

Fundamentally, in the investment world, as far as I undertand, is that anything with a high rate of return almost always represents a high level of risk. The bigger the return, the higher the risk. Any sane person, after they've retired, should have most of their funds in a very, very low risk account. After returement, you should only risk what you can afford ot lose since your investments ARE your only source of income.

[Dave McReynolds]

Is it a casinos fault if you bet all of your money and lose

 

The only valid comparison between what Madoff did and what a casino does would be if the casino's wheels and slots were rigged to cheat the customer and return more to the house than would be indicated by the known odds that anyone could calculate from the rules of the game. I think I would have to go even further: not only would the casino's games have to be rigged, but the casino would have to be operating without sufficient funds to pay off whatever bets the customers might win. Both of those things would have to be true.

 

There is no comparison between a casino operating under the rules, with sufficient capital, and what Madoff did.

[John Ranalletta]

Here's another take on my reasoning expressed as an analogy.

 

Two women have their purses snatched. Each purse contains $50. One woman is Sally Smith,

an otherwise normal, work-a-day citizen. The second woman is Lady Astor. In each case, the

thief is caught.

 

When Sally Smith's assailant is sentenced, the judge might consider exigent circumstances

and throw the book at the thief. Not likely, but it could happen that the thief gets the

max.

 

OTOH, when Lady Astor's assailant appears for sentencing, the Lady is in the courtroom. Could

it be that the sentence the judge will hand down will be affected by the fact that his

daughter attended Wellesley with Lady Astor's daughter; or that he belongs to the same country

club as the Lady; or that Lady Astor hosted a fund raiser for his candidacy?

 

Likely, under these circumstances, Lady Astor's assailant will get the max; not because his

crime was more heinous but because the judge was influenced by outside elements including social

and financial pressure.

 

This is what I think happened to Madoff. Throngs of society's elite and the media were swinging

nooses on the sidewalk; and the judge felt that pressure to appease; for he has to live amongst them.

 

75 years w/o parole would have done the same; or life and a day; but, no. He got 150 years, a

sentence no living person could possibly serve was measured out. It only makes sense when

one remembers that the rich get all the justice they want, whether as plaintiffs, victims

or accused.

 

 

[SeanC]

Here's another analogy for you: A man viciously attacks, maims and gravely injures two people -- the first, a drunken patron outside a nightclub; the second, a school-age child. Both victims sustain similar injuries, multiple contusions, broken bones and lasting brain damage that will affect them the rest of their lives.

 

By your reasoning, the assailant should receive equal sentences for both counts?

[John Ranalletta]

No. I simply make the point that in the Madoff case, the sentence was driven by social pressure caused by the social status of the persons cheated.

 

Not sure how that equates to a crime perpetrated against another adult or a assumed defenseless child.