Just curious, considering 150 Just curious, considering 150 years is basically a death sentence anyway….
sunny88
June 29, 2009 @
12:01 PM
Death sentence would be too Death sentence would be too easy for a crook like him. I would favor labor camp in a tropical climate without A/C and allowing his victims to visit him on a regular basis. Once he has repaid his victims he can go back to jail to spend the rest of his life there.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 29, 2009 @
2:09 PM
flu wrote:Just curious, [quote=flu]Just curious, considering 150 years is basically a death sentence anyway….
[/quote]
FLU: There is a huge difference between a life sentence and a death sentence. I am personally opposed to the death penalty (which is state sanctioned murder), but, even if I weren’t, you don’t put something to death for something like this.
As reprehensible and heinous as his crimes were, they don’t cross the threshold (IMHO) that merits the death penalty.
Yes, he should be held accountable for his crimes, and 150 years seems appropriate.
briansd1
June 29, 2009 @
2:51 PM
Allan, I pretty much agree. Allan, I pretty much agree.
Financial crimes are relative. Madoff did not hold anyone at gun point or threaten or harm them physically.
I feel that 150 years is excessive in relation to other financial crimes. For example, Milken got 10 years but served less than 2 years.
I bet you that Madoff will be out for some kind of good behavior and medical reason when he’s old. I’m also sure that his sons and relatives still have millions to take care of him.
equalizer
June 29, 2009 @
9:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook [quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=flu]Just curious, considering 150 years is basically a death sentence anyway….
[/quote]
FLU: There is a huge difference between a life sentence and a death sentence. I am personally opposed to the death penalty (which is state sanctioned murder), but, even if I weren’t, you don’t put something to death for something like this.
As reprehensible and heinous as his crimes were, they don’t cross the threshold (IMHO) that merits the death penalty.
Yes, he should be held accountable for his crimes, and 150 years seems appropriate.[/quote]
I thought the libs pegged you as the the Yankee jingoistic Imperialistic John Wayne type a few months ago. Are you turning sublime?
paramount
June 29, 2009 @
10:27 PM
I have to wonder about the I have to wonder about the investors – how naive were they really?
UCGal
June 29, 2009 @
1:18 PM
I don’t agree with the death I don’t agree with the death penalty in this case – but I don’t have a problem with this sentence of 150 years.
He bilked a lot of people. Lets say it’s 75 people – 2 years for each person… seems reasonable. He had a career of ripping people off. He lived large off the profits. He ruined a lot of lives. He ripped off charitable foundations. He didn’t care if the investor was rich/poor… he took their money to feed the ponzi scheme.
It doesn’t matter what his life expectancy is. He could die tomorrow or he could live another 30 years (unlikely as that is.) Why should his sentence have anything to do with his life expectancy? If he were 25 years old and convicted of the same crimes, he should get the same sentence – and still be expected to die in jail. The sentence has more to do with the crimes than the criminal’s health/age.
I just wish that criminals who commit violent crimes would get this kind of sentence.
kicksavedave
June 29, 2009 @
1:29 PM
I would reserve the death I would reserve the death penalty for violent offenders, but there is something about having every one of BM’s victims sitting around watching through the glass window while they inject him that would have a nice sense of closure to it. Having him stare in the faces of the people whose lives he ruined as they put him to sleep like an unwanted dog.
It might even have a tiny bit of preventative action. Although that never applies with the violent offenders who get the chair (or injection, what ever). Still a future would be financial scammer may thing twice…
Eh, probably not.
Coronita
June 29, 2009 @
2:39 PM
As a wrinkle, not that I As a wrinkle, not that I particular support DP in this case, but it was an argument that came up with peers.
One of the other things that it came down to was…(1)cost of keeping him alive and (2)that cost born by an unproductive member of society versus the those resources that could be used elsewhere
As some peers had pointed out, aren’t taxpayers evidently on the hook for paying for the bills of his incarceration? Let’s say he’s 90, and gets some heart attack…So should fed/state pay for a doctor to give him surgery/transplant etc to keep him alive for the sole purpose of him serving out his sentence? Shouldn’t the resources (as finite as they are) be redistributed to people in need and more in deserving, not to mention keepin someone alive at that point arguably could be considered cruel and unusual.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, not saying I necessarily support the DP in this case. My argument was that we tend to be a more civilized nation.
briansd1
June 29, 2009 @
2:50 PM
flu wrote:Shouldn’t the [quote=flu]Shouldn’t the resources (as finite as they are) be redistributed to people in need and more in deserving[/quote]
Good points, but those are policy questions and not legal questions.
Congress can always change the laws.
Similarly,
1) could the resources thrown at real estate not be put to better use elsewhere?
2) what if we only spend 5% of GDP on health care rather than 15%?
sunny88
June 29, 2009 @
3:32 PM
What about asking his family What about asking his family to pay the cost for his incarceration? They had a lavish life cheating thousands of people. Isn’t it time for some payback to the society?
Arraya
June 29, 2009 @
3:51 PM
If you consider the people If you consider the people Madoff defrauded as “victims” you could apply the same logic to home buyers at the top of the bubble.
Sure, the home buyers got a an asset, but they both were ponzi schemes and the “investors” eagerly believed the unbelievable.
Though, Madoff did not have the full support of the USG. They just turned a blind eye for decades with repeated warnings.
Zeitgeist
June 29, 2009 @
4:00 PM
Only if those he defrauded Only if those he defrauded get to vote on the manner of death, such as death by a thousand cuts, etc. It should be televised on pay for view and the money after the cost of the broadcast should go to the victims. I am a supporter of the death penalty.
temeculaguy
June 29, 2009 @
4:26 PM
Have a little perspective, Have a little perspective, it’s only money.
The death penalty is rarely used in California, here you can look at the 13 people executed since the 1970’s and see who they killed and how, none of the stories are pretty, most killed more than one person, murdered children, elderley women, raped or tortured their victims, etc.
I am willing to bet that if you asked the surviving loved ones of these victims if they would prefer being bilked out of their investments or to have their loved ones killed in horrible and terrifying ways, they would cut you a check in a heartbeat. Bernie was a crook, he’ll die in jail, but he and his crimes are in the Junior Varsity category as far as what humans have done to each other.
patientrenter
June 29, 2009 @
4:44 PM
I totally oppose what Madoff I totally oppose what Madoff did. I think he’s getting off too lightly because, as someone else pointed out, he will probably find a way to get out one day, and I am sure that he or his relatives or friends have kept and stashed many millions of ill-gotten gains.
But there is a certain justice to all this. People who lost money with Madoff were exactly those who thought they could get a free lunch – high yields with low risk. Greed. Those who lost everything were those who gluttonously wanted as much as they could get of that free lunch, regardless of the wisdom of diversification. More greed. All were sophisticated investors, or at least solemnly swore that they were sophisticated investors, since only sophisticated investors are permitted to invest in hedge funds. Hubris/dishonesty.
The real travesty would be if taxpayers at large had to funnel money into this Ponzi scheme to provide, after the fact, a free lunch to people who insisted that was their right.
Allan from Fallbrook
June 29, 2009 @
5:26 PM
temeculaguy wrote:Have a [quote=temeculaguy]Have a little perspective, it’s only money.
The death penalty is rarely used in California, here you can look at the 13 people executed since the 1970’s and see who they killed and how, none of the stories are pretty, most killed more than one person, murdered children, elderley women, raped or tortured their victims, etc.
I am willing to bet that if you asked the surviving loved ones of these victims if they would prefer being bilked out of their investments or to have their loved ones killed in horrible and terrifying ways, they would cut you a check in a heartbeat. Bernie was a crook, he’ll die in jail, but he and his crimes are in the Junior Varsity category as far as what humans have done to each other.[/quote]
TG: Bingo, baby.
PR: Bingo II.
Anonymous
June 29, 2009 @
4:23 PM
Executing someone for Executing someone for carrying out a Ponzi scheme would be the height of hypocrisy, unless we executed the President and Congress as well. Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes on a much larger scale and will ruin more people’s lives than Madoff ever could.
I guess running a Ponzi scheme is a government privilege.
The Turtle
New_Renter
June 29, 2009 @
4:56 PM
Absolutely Not! I am very Absolutely Not! I am very glad to see the 150 years though….
alarmclock
June 29, 2009 @
5:49 PM
have you ever considered how have you ever considered how those smug madoff investors who were so happy earning 1.5% per month like clockwork would have done in the market (i.e. if madoff et al had never existed)? if you lost your ass with madoff it’s your own damn fault for not understanding your investments better and diversifying.
if madoff deserves the death penalty for losing many billions of dollars in total, wouldn’t the same apply for the various pension managers (CALPERS, etc)?
[edit] You realize not every madoff investor lost money, right? if you took any redemptions then you did NOT lose everything. in fact some investors made money.
equalizer
June 29, 2009 @
9:40 PM
alarmclock wrote:have you [quote=alarmclock]have you ever considered how those smug madoff investors who were so happy earning 1.5% per month like clockwork would have done in the market (i.e. if madoff et al had never existed)? if you lost your ass with madoff it’s your own damn fault for not understanding your investments better and diversifying.
if madoff deserves the death penalty for losing many billions of dollars in total, wouldn’t the same apply for the various pension managers (CALPERS, etc)?
[edit] You realize not every madoff investor lost money, right? if you took any redemptions then you did NOT lose everything. in fact some investors made money.[/quote]
Good point that is rarely heard. When do you get to keep stolen property? If I invested in BM 10 years and got out last year with 500% profit, why should I get to keep the Ponzi profits?
My mafia friends in Chicago donated lot of bucks to charity over the years. Why do the charities get to keep the donations off the so-called ruthless tactics of the mafiaso when they are taken down by the Feds? “We are just innocent bystanders” seems a little trite.
What say you Allan, TG?
My mind has been polluted from Crossire, McLaughlin Group, Stern, Imus, Mahr and I only have vexing questions, no anwers.
UCGal
June 30, 2009 @
8:41 AM
equalizer wrote:alarmclock [quote=equalizer][quote=alarmclock]have you ever considered how those smug madoff investors who were so happy earning 1.5% per month like clockwork would have done in the market (i.e. if madoff et al had never existed)? if you lost your ass with madoff it’s your own damn fault for not understanding your investments better and diversifying.
if madoff deserves the death penalty for losing many billions of dollars in total, wouldn’t the same apply for the various pension managers (CALPERS, etc)?
[edit] You realize not every madoff investor lost money, right? if you took any redemptions then you did NOT lose everything. in fact some investors made money.[/quote]
Good point that is rarely heard. When do you get to keep stolen property? If I invested in BM 10 years and got out last year with 500% profit, why should I get to keep the Ponzi profits?
My mafia friends in Chicago donated lot of bucks to charity over the years. Why do the charities get to keep the donations off the so-called ruthless tactics of the mafiaso when they are taken down by the Feds? “We are just innocent bystanders” seems a little trite.
What say you Allan, TG?
My mind has been polluted from Crossire, McLaughlin Group, Stern, Imus, Mahr and I only have vexing questions, no anwers.
[/quote]
Heard on KPBS this morning… The trustee in charge of the Madoff investments -the one trying to recoup as much money as possible IS going after investors who did not suffer losses because they’d pulled out their money prior to the implosion. They can look back 6 years. The laws are set up to distribute the pain, and not benefit someone who fortuitiously pulled thier money out early from the fraudulant scheme over someone who left their money in. Lawsuits have already been filed.
They are also looking at “investors” who were actually dictating the amount of gain or losses. Apparently there are “investors” who knew it was a fraud enough to dictate specific tax favorable long term gains, vs short term, etc. I hope those folks go to jail.
Here’s a more on-point Here’s a more on-point article about the issues faced by the bankruptcy trustee. It says specifically that they are going after gains made by investors who withdrew before the implosion.
Interesting (to me) twist on the fact that SIPC does not cover investments made through feeder funds but does cover (up to $500k) investments made directly with madoff.
June 29, 2009 @ 11:48 AM
Just curious, considering 150
Just curious, considering 150 years is basically a death sentence anyway….
June 29, 2009 @ 12:01 PM
Death sentence would be too
Death sentence would be too easy for a crook like him. I would favor labor camp in a tropical climate without A/C and allowing his victims to visit him on a regular basis. Once he has repaid his victims he can go back to jail to spend the rest of his life there.
June 29, 2009 @ 2:09 PM
flu wrote:Just curious,
[quote=flu]Just curious, considering 150 years is basically a death sentence anyway….
[/quote]
FLU: There is a huge difference between a life sentence and a death sentence. I am personally opposed to the death penalty (which is state sanctioned murder), but, even if I weren’t, you don’t put something to death for something like this.
As reprehensible and heinous as his crimes were, they don’t cross the threshold (IMHO) that merits the death penalty.
Yes, he should be held accountable for his crimes, and 150 years seems appropriate.
June 29, 2009 @ 2:51 PM
Allan, I pretty much agree.
Allan, I pretty much agree.
Financial crimes are relative. Madoff did not hold anyone at gun point or threaten or harm them physically.
I feel that 150 years is excessive in relation to other financial crimes. For example, Milken got 10 years but served less than 2 years.
I bet you that Madoff will be out for some kind of good behavior and medical reason when he’s old. I’m also sure that his sons and relatives still have millions to take care of him.
June 29, 2009 @ 9:48 PM
Allan from Fallbrook
[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=flu]Just curious, considering 150 years is basically a death sentence anyway….
[/quote]
FLU: There is a huge difference between a life sentence and a death sentence. I am personally opposed to the death penalty (which is state sanctioned murder), but, even if I weren’t, you don’t put something to death for something like this.
As reprehensible and heinous as his crimes were, they don’t cross the threshold (IMHO) that merits the death penalty.
Yes, he should be held accountable for his crimes, and 150 years seems appropriate.[/quote]
I thought the libs pegged you as the the Yankee jingoistic Imperialistic John Wayne type a few months ago. Are you turning sublime?
June 29, 2009 @ 10:27 PM
I have to wonder about the
I have to wonder about the investors – how naive were they really?
June 29, 2009 @ 1:18 PM
I don’t agree with the death
I don’t agree with the death penalty in this case – but I don’t have a problem with this sentence of 150 years.
He bilked a lot of people. Lets say it’s 75 people – 2 years for each person… seems reasonable. He had a career of ripping people off. He lived large off the profits. He ruined a lot of lives. He ripped off charitable foundations. He didn’t care if the investor was rich/poor… he took their money to feed the ponzi scheme.
It doesn’t matter what his life expectancy is. He could die tomorrow or he could live another 30 years (unlikely as that is.) Why should his sentence have anything to do with his life expectancy? If he were 25 years old and convicted of the same crimes, he should get the same sentence – and still be expected to die in jail. The sentence has more to do with the crimes than the criminal’s health/age.
I just wish that criminals who commit violent crimes would get this kind of sentence.
June 29, 2009 @ 1:29 PM
I would reserve the death
I would reserve the death penalty for violent offenders, but there is something about having every one of BM’s victims sitting around watching through the glass window while they inject him that would have a nice sense of closure to it. Having him stare in the faces of the people whose lives he ruined as they put him to sleep like an unwanted dog.
It might even have a tiny bit of preventative action. Although that never applies with the violent offenders who get the chair (or injection, what ever). Still a future would be financial scammer may thing twice…
Eh, probably not.
June 29, 2009 @ 2:39 PM
As a wrinkle, not that I
As a wrinkle, not that I particular support DP in this case, but it was an argument that came up with peers.
One of the other things that it came down to was…(1)cost of keeping him alive and (2)that cost born by an unproductive member of society versus the those resources that could be used elsewhere
As some peers had pointed out, aren’t taxpayers evidently on the hook for paying for the bills of his incarceration? Let’s say he’s 90, and gets some heart attack…So should fed/state pay for a doctor to give him surgery/transplant etc to keep him alive for the sole purpose of him serving out his sentence? Shouldn’t the resources (as finite as they are) be redistributed to people in need and more in deserving, not to mention keepin someone alive at that point arguably could be considered cruel and unusual.
Just playing devil’s advocate here, not saying I necessarily support the DP in this case. My argument was that we tend to be a more civilized nation.
June 29, 2009 @ 2:50 PM
flu wrote:Shouldn’t the
[quote=flu]Shouldn’t the resources (as finite as they are) be redistributed to people in need and more in deserving[/quote]
Good points, but those are policy questions and not legal questions.
Congress can always change the laws.
Similarly,
1) could the resources thrown at real estate not be put to better use elsewhere?
2) what if we only spend 5% of GDP on health care rather than 15%?
June 29, 2009 @ 3:32 PM
What about asking his family
What about asking his family to pay the cost for his incarceration? They had a lavish life cheating thousands of people. Isn’t it time for some payback to the society?
June 29, 2009 @ 3:51 PM
If you consider the people
If you consider the people Madoff defrauded as “victims” you could apply the same logic to home buyers at the top of the bubble.
Sure, the home buyers got a an asset, but they both were ponzi schemes and the “investors” eagerly believed the unbelievable.
Though, Madoff did not have the full support of the USG. They just turned a blind eye for decades with repeated warnings.
June 29, 2009 @ 4:00 PM
Only if those he defrauded
Only if those he defrauded get to vote on the manner of death, such as death by a thousand cuts, etc. It should be televised on pay for view and the money after the cost of the broadcast should go to the victims. I am a supporter of the death penalty.
June 29, 2009 @ 4:26 PM
Have a little perspective,
Have a little perspective, it’s only money.
The death penalty is rarely used in California, here you can look at the 13 people executed since the 1970’s and see who they killed and how, none of the stories are pretty, most killed more than one person, murdered children, elderley women, raped or tortured their victims, etc.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Inmates_Executed.html
I am willing to bet that if you asked the surviving loved ones of these victims if they would prefer being bilked out of their investments or to have their loved ones killed in horrible and terrifying ways, they would cut you a check in a heartbeat. Bernie was a crook, he’ll die in jail, but he and his crimes are in the Junior Varsity category as far as what humans have done to each other.
June 29, 2009 @ 4:44 PM
I totally oppose what Madoff
I totally oppose what Madoff did. I think he’s getting off too lightly because, as someone else pointed out, he will probably find a way to get out one day, and I am sure that he or his relatives or friends have kept and stashed many millions of ill-gotten gains.
But there is a certain justice to all this. People who lost money with Madoff were exactly those who thought they could get a free lunch – high yields with low risk. Greed. Those who lost everything were those who gluttonously wanted as much as they could get of that free lunch, regardless of the wisdom of diversification. More greed. All were sophisticated investors, or at least solemnly swore that they were sophisticated investors, since only sophisticated investors are permitted to invest in hedge funds. Hubris/dishonesty.
The real travesty would be if taxpayers at large had to funnel money into this Ponzi scheme to provide, after the fact, a free lunch to people who insisted that was their right.
June 29, 2009 @ 5:26 PM
temeculaguy wrote:Have a
[quote=temeculaguy]Have a little perspective, it’s only money.
The death penalty is rarely used in California, here you can look at the 13 people executed since the 1970’s and see who they killed and how, none of the stories are pretty, most killed more than one person, murdered children, elderley women, raped or tortured their victims, etc.
http://www.cdcr.ca.gov/Reports_Research/Inmates_Executed.html
I am willing to bet that if you asked the surviving loved ones of these victims if they would prefer being bilked out of their investments or to have their loved ones killed in horrible and terrifying ways, they would cut you a check in a heartbeat. Bernie was a crook, he’ll die in jail, but he and his crimes are in the Junior Varsity category as far as what humans have done to each other.[/quote]
TG: Bingo, baby.
PR: Bingo II.
June 29, 2009 @ 4:23 PM
Executing someone for
Executing someone for carrying out a Ponzi scheme would be the height of hypocrisy, unless we executed the President and Congress as well. Social Security and Medicare are Ponzi schemes on a much larger scale and will ruin more people’s lives than Madoff ever could.
I guess running a Ponzi scheme is a government privilege.
The Turtle
June 29, 2009 @ 4:56 PM
Absolutely Not! I am very
Absolutely Not! I am very glad to see the 150 years though….
June 29, 2009 @ 5:49 PM
have you ever considered how
have you ever considered how those smug madoff investors who were so happy earning 1.5% per month like clockwork would have done in the market (i.e. if madoff et al had never existed)? if you lost your ass with madoff it’s your own damn fault for not understanding your investments better and diversifying.
if madoff deserves the death penalty for losing many billions of dollars in total, wouldn’t the same apply for the various pension managers (CALPERS, etc)?
[edit] You realize not every madoff investor lost money, right? if you took any redemptions then you did NOT lose everything. in fact some investors made money.
June 29, 2009 @ 9:40 PM
alarmclock wrote:have you
[quote=alarmclock]have you ever considered how those smug madoff investors who were so happy earning 1.5% per month like clockwork would have done in the market (i.e. if madoff et al had never existed)? if you lost your ass with madoff it’s your own damn fault for not understanding your investments better and diversifying.
if madoff deserves the death penalty for losing many billions of dollars in total, wouldn’t the same apply for the various pension managers (CALPERS, etc)?
[edit] You realize not every madoff investor lost money, right? if you took any redemptions then you did NOT lose everything. in fact some investors made money.[/quote]
Good point that is rarely heard. When do you get to keep stolen property? If I invested in BM 10 years and got out last year with 500% profit, why should I get to keep the Ponzi profits?
My mafia friends in Chicago donated lot of bucks to charity over the years. Why do the charities get to keep the donations off the so-called ruthless tactics of the mafiaso when they are taken down by the Feds? “We are just innocent bystanders” seems a little trite.
What say you Allan, TG?
My mind has been polluted from Crossire, McLaughlin Group, Stern, Imus, Mahr and I only have vexing questions, no anwers.
June 30, 2009 @ 8:41 AM
equalizer wrote:alarmclock
[quote=equalizer][quote=alarmclock]have you ever considered how those smug madoff investors who were so happy earning 1.5% per month like clockwork would have done in the market (i.e. if madoff et al had never existed)? if you lost your ass with madoff it’s your own damn fault for not understanding your investments better and diversifying.
if madoff deserves the death penalty for losing many billions of dollars in total, wouldn’t the same apply for the various pension managers (CALPERS, etc)?
[edit] You realize not every madoff investor lost money, right? if you took any redemptions then you did NOT lose everything. in fact some investors made money.[/quote]
Good point that is rarely heard. When do you get to keep stolen property? If I invested in BM 10 years and got out last year with 500% profit, why should I get to keep the Ponzi profits?
My mafia friends in Chicago donated lot of bucks to charity over the years. Why do the charities get to keep the donations off the so-called ruthless tactics of the mafiaso when they are taken down by the Feds? “We are just innocent bystanders” seems a little trite.
What say you Allan, TG?
My mind has been polluted from Crossire, McLaughlin Group, Stern, Imus, Mahr and I only have vexing questions, no anwers.
[/quote]
Heard on KPBS this morning… The trustee in charge of the Madoff investments -the one trying to recoup as much money as possible IS going after investors who did not suffer losses because they’d pulled out their money prior to the implosion. They can look back 6 years. The laws are set up to distribute the pain, and not benefit someone who fortuitiously pulled thier money out early from the fraudulant scheme over someone who left their money in. Lawsuits have already been filed.
They are also looking at “investors” who were actually dictating the amount of gain or losses. Apparently there are “investors” who knew it was a fraud enough to dictate specific tax favorable long term gains, vs short term, etc. I hope those folks go to jail.
Here’s an article about the trustee suing an investor.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=amvc1G6COZes
June 30, 2009 @ 8:54 AM
Here’s a more on-point
Here’s a more on-point article about the issues faced by the bankruptcy trustee. It says specifically that they are going after gains made by investors who withdrew before the implosion.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/29/business/29madoff.html?ref=us
Interesting (to me) twist on the fact that SIPC does not cover investments made through feeder funds but does cover (up to $500k) investments made directly with madoff.