Lord of Hunger Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 What exactly to you mean it wasn't about delivering justice? I suppose that if you consider justice to be that everyone who got swindled gets back what they lost then perhaps you're right. Exactly, the injury is not repaired. All that is happening here is a ceremony where everyone can rejoice in some else experiencing their own misery. Overall, there is no improvement, everyone is just having their own piece of hell or being happy about someone else having their own piece of hell. At the same time, the guy was discovered to have committed a crime, he was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced. Seems like the justice system at work to me. Justice should work not just to provide consequences but to stop crimes and rectify them. Most of the time the Justice system simply adds more misery to the equation. More justice will occur when the wife sells the mansion and other possessions bought through criminal actions. Just putting Madoff into a prison where he'll probably get prison raped or something does not make the world a better place or make him a better person. Why rejoice in that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Does it seem wrong that I just don't have the same sense of abhorrence for this man than more violent individuals who receive much lesser sentencing? Economics is politics. Maybe he should've tried a defence of promoting a socialist system... SAY WHAT?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 While I'm against severe punishment in most cases, crimes done for personal (materal) gain without other acceptable motives (i.e your family would starve) should be punished more severly than now simply because I believe it is more efective in such cases. Exactly, the injury is not repaired. All that is happening here is a ceremony where everyone can rejoice in some else experiencing their own misery. Overall, there is no improvement, everyone is just having their own piece of hell or being happy about someone else having their own piece of hell. While by that definition of justice you are right, the system also (thankfully) aims to deter others thinking about commiting the same crime. Justice should work not just to provide consequences but to stop crimes and rectify them. Most of the time the Justice system simply adds more misery to the equation. Agreed (see above), however this is one case where I'd argue the harsh punishment is the right thing to do (at least from a utilitarian perspective). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Totenkopf Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Ultimately, given the circumstances, justice has been served. I agree that the 150 yr sentence was as much a warning to others as a punishment for Madoff's crimes. I also agree that the wife should basically be left as destitute as his victim's. Have to wonder if he didn't fall on his sword to protect his family. I suspect his sons and wife should probably be in the slammer as well. "Justice" is sometimes as selective as the course of "least resistance". His prosecution would prove to be a slam dunk, but the others.. maybe not. Nevertheless, hard to feel anything bordering on sympathy for this man or think that his penalty was too harsh. But the success of his schemes is as much an indictment of the SEC and regulators as anything. How many of them will get penalized for looking the other way and not doing their jobs....especially when flags were being raised. Had the govt been more vigilant, this man's crimes would have still been big, but would likely have ended sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JediAthos Posted July 1, 2009 Share Posted July 1, 2009 Exactly, the injury is not repaired. All that is happening here is a ceremony where everyone can rejoice in some else experiencing their own misery. Overall, there is no improvement, everyone is just having their own piece of hell or being happy about someone else having their own piece of hell. Justice should work not just to provide consequences but to stop crimes and rectify them. Most of the time the Justice system simply adds more misery to the equation. More justice will occur when the wife sells the mansion and other possessions bought through criminal actions. Just putting Madoff into a prison where he'll probably get prison raped or something does not make the world a better place or make him a better person. Why rejoice in that? The justice system is not now, nor has it ever been designed to repair the injury. You can't repair most of the things that people are brought to trial for. Murder, rape, child abuse, assault etc...can never be repaired. The only thing the system can do is punish the guilty. In so far as theft is concerned, if law enforcement is able to recover the stolen items then yes they are returned, but if not the only thing that is left is to punish the guilty. That is what the justice system has always been designed to do. Perhaps some will call me a bad person, I'm not sure I care, but I have always found it satisfying to see someone who committed grievous crimes against other people be convicted and sentenced for what they did. The system isn't perfect..far from it..but it is what it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 But the success of his schemes is as much an indictment of the SEC and regulators as anything. How many of them will get penalized for looking the other way and not doing their jobs....especially when flags were being raised. Had the govt been more vigilant, this man's crimes would have still been big, but would likely have ended sooner. Hardly just the govt's fault, anyone buying into a scheme where you are guaranteed high stable returns that consitently beats the market, are basically asking to be fooled. JA: From a utilitarian point of view your happiness would atually be considered a gain for society, together with any reduction (if at all) caused by detterent. Of course, this would be put against the unhappiness of the criminal caused by the punishment, the unhappines ofthose believing he should have recieved a less strit punishment, as well as the unhappiness caused by the taxes that pays for the punishment. And, as I have allready stated, in this case I believe the effect of the punishment is a gain, though it ould be far more effective if more such criminals where caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nedak Posted July 3, 2009 Share Posted July 3, 2009 HAHA! Touche American Government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 ^^^You and your hilarious one-liners. *shakes head and chuckles* Well, I'd say that the judge not backing down, especially with the remorselessness of Made-off(-with-your-money)'s dimeanor that justice has been served. You can't get much better for this individual but maybe marginal at best. Now the governing board ought to be prosecuted for ethics violations. But the success of his schemes is as much an indictment of the SEC and regulators as anything. How many of them will get penalized for looking the other way and not doing their jobs....especially when flags were being raised. Had the govt been more vigilant, this man's crimes would have still been big, but would likely have ended sooner. Bah, you know these people will probably end up getting off easier (probably one of those "hotel joints" for their incarceration) for being enablers. However, I agree. Part of the reason for their jobs was to ensure ethical integrity which they did not. This case is exactly what people like you and me consider the bane of the free market. Without integrity the foundation is corrupted; the establishment can never last with a corrupt foundation. The justice system is not now, nor has it ever been designed to repair the injury. You can't repair most of the things that people are brought to trial for. Murder, rape, child abuse, assault etc...can never be repaired. The only thing the system can do is punish the guilty. In so far as theft is concerned, if law enforcement is able to recover the stolen items then yes they are returned, but if not the only thing that is left is to punish the guilty. That is what the justice system has always been designed to do. QFT. On occasion it has also to try to rehabilitate the guilty back to a functional status for their return to society. This gives varied results. I don't know of late the success rates but I would imagine it is not good--probably quite pitiful. Certainly we hear more about the failures, though this may be media hyperbole to some extent. The failures just go to show, it only yields so much returns w.r.t. results it gets. Perhaps some will call me a bad person, I'm not sure I care, but I have always found it satisfying to see someone who committed grievous crimes against other people be convicted and sentenced for what they did. The system isn't perfect..far from it..but it is what it is. I think you're right. On the other side of the token: this is a construct of our civility. Another gray zone or catch 22. On the one hand it prevents us from punishing or executing the wrongfully accused/arrested. On the other hand it does just the opposite in certain cases. Also consider it keeps citizens from becoming barbaric. (Hint: "If the cops/lord don't get him, then I will!") Yet it can also be a vehicle/means to an end (or to no end) for the most vile and despicable of people. Well worth considering. Hardly just the govt's fault' date=' anyone buying into a scheme where you are guaranteed high stable returns that consitently beats the market, are basically asking to be fooled.[/quote'] Where the person investing lacked common sense to a large margin I'll agree with you. HOWEVER: Where it was a much more realistic sounding fabrication that even people with common sense could believe...well, that is some rather *crafty* fabricating ... Wouldn't you say? So for at least the latter, I'll say that is case enough to prove the board ought to be ashamed of itself. JA: From a utilitarian point of view your happiness would atually be considered a gain for society, together with any reduction (if at all) caused by detterent. Of course, this would be put against the unhappiness of the criminal caused by the punishment, the unhappines ofthose believing he should have recieved a less strit punishment, as well as the unhappiness caused by the taxes that pays for the punishment. And, as I have allready stated, in this case I believe the effect of the punishment is a gain, though it ould be far more effective if more such criminals where caught. Caught in the first place? Caught in the act? What? (I am interested to hear it.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 Madoff. What an appropriate name for this guy. He Madoff with billions-'till he got caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted July 6, 2009 Share Posted July 6, 2009 ^I hope you're not just thinking of that lol...that's such an old joke even today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 No, but no one had mentioned it yet in the thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allronix Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Well, he's going to spend the rest of his life in a little cell, eating institutional food, and maybe working for any luxuries. The millions that the state confiscated from him will go back into repaying as much as possible to the victims. As to his wife? Maybe she was in on it, maybe she was merely a trophy bimbo who went shopping with the money, but never questioned where it came from. If she was in on it, the court system can deal with her. It's not perfect - justice seldom is. Still, one takes a victory when one can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 ^^^Exactly. Better, vastly, than letting that ganif off easy. No, but no one had mentioned it yet in the thread. Hmm...let's see...I said "Made-off-with-your-money" and this being discussed means he got caught. I thought the humor was in the ironic truth? Don't I get any credit? I guess if someone had to explicitly mention it, it was you. *Pats your shoulder.* "Good job!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
urluckyday Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 Well, he's going to spend the rest of his life in a little cell, eating institutional food, and maybe working for any luxuries. The millions that the state confiscated from him will go back into repaying as much as possible to the victims. As to his wife? Maybe she was in on it, maybe she was merely a trophy bimbo who went shopping with the money, but never questioned where it came from. If she was in on it, the court system can deal with her. It's not perfect - justice seldom is. Still, one takes a victory when one can. No, his wife was in on it...and it's more like she dealt with the court system...they let her off easy and let her keep over 2 mil...I'll never have that much money in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Q Posted July 7, 2009 Share Posted July 7, 2009 ^^^Exactly. Better, vastly, than letting that ganif off easy. Hmm...let's see...I said "Made-off-with-your-money" and this being discussed means he got caught. I thought the humor was in the ironic truth? Don't I get any credit? I guess if someone had to explicitly mention it, it was you. *Pats your shoulder.* "Good job!" Oops. Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 10, 2009 Share Posted July 10, 2009 Where the person investing lacked common sense to a large margin I'll agree with you. HOWEVER: Where it was a much more realistic sounding fabrication that even people with common sense could believe...well, that is some rather *crafty* fabricating ... Wouldn't you say? Thing is, a lot of people knew it was a scam, his fabrication wasn't even a ery good one, he often reported to investors that he had bought shares which didn't exist, or at prices that where way out of wack. Even most fantastic investors don't beat the market buy much, and they (unless bat****) never promise that they'll provide consitent high returns, especially without a fee (which he did). In short, the only ones who I feel sorry for are those who invested in his scheme through midle men who promised due diligence. For those people, it's time to sue, and not just Madoff. Caught in the first place? Caught in the act? What? No idea what you're getting at, please elaborate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Avlectus Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Thing is' date=' a lot of people knew it was a scam, his fabrication wasn't even a ery good one, he often reported to investors that he had bought shares which didn't exist, or at prices that where way out of wack. Even most fantastic investors don't beat the market buy much, and they (unless bat****) never promise that they'll provide consitent high returns, especially without a fee (which he did). In short, the only ones who I feel sorry for are those who invested in his scheme through midle men who promised due diligence. For those people, it's time to sue, and not just Madoff.[/quote'] Odd I do not see the suing about to happen, though I guess I agree with you. Sad how much people let stuff slide, eh? No idea what you're getting at, please elaborate. You said: JA: From a utilitarian point of view your happiness would atually be considered a gain for society, together with any reduction (if at all) caused by detterent. Of course, this would be put against the unhappiness of the criminal caused by the punishment, the unhappines ofthose believing he should have recieved a less strit punishment, as well as the unhappiness caused by the taxes that pays for the punishment. And, as I have allready stated, in this case I believe the effect of the punishment is a gain, though it ould be far more effective if more such criminals where caught. I think I get the jist of what you're saying but that last part of caught I want you to clarify by more. More caught in the first place, in the act or having already comitted the crime? Not that I'm unimaginative--just that...what did you mean by more caught? Quantity? Caught in the process? I'd agree more, if I saw any such way to do a better job, at least practically anyways. I'm just not sure it's attainable (Don't I wish), other than higher diligence/vigilance levels of individuals regulating. That in itself just seems like a shot in the dark, know what I mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mur'phon Posted July 11, 2009 Share Posted July 11, 2009 Odd I do not see the suing about to happen, though I guess I agree with you. Sad how much people let stuff slide, eh? At least Fairfield is allready sued (probably to oblivion), the media might not report to much on this because it's hard to sell a "demon company" story when those in the company where probably thick rather than devious. The "more caught" bit was referencing to economical crime in general, which has the unfortunate combination of being A: usually not severly punished, B: a crime few get caught doing, and C: a "selfish" crime (i.e it's a calculated risk you take, not something done because of your emotions at the time and usually not done out of self preservation). With the chance of geting caught low, the punishments light, and the rewards big, many will reason it is in their best interest to commit such crimes. Increasing the punishment isn't going to cost much, catching more will, but ask yourself how much those crimes are allready costing us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.