When Bernie Madoff was sentenced a few weeks ago, my reaction was that it is utterly absurd to imprison a 72 year-old white collar criminal for 150 years. I mean, really — what’s the point?
Bernie Madoff’s 150-year prison sentence was an affront to the federal criminal justice system. . . .
I’ve been a professional federal sentencing consultant for more than 32 years. I have worked with hundreds of white-collar offenders over the past 25 years – Madoff, most recently – whose punishments dramatically increased in direct proportion to the government trumpets of justice, punishment and deterrence. Having lived through the past two decades of federal sentencing guidelines (no longer to be "presumed reasonable," ruled the Supreme Court this year), I know that the Madoff sentence was the crown jewel for the government.
In imposing sentence, however, the court ignored virtually all statutory sentencing principles and trumped the defunct federal sentencing guidelines. The sentence was imposed, acknowledged Judge Denny Chin, for symbolic purposes, which violates the supposed blindfolds of our nation’s justice system.
The sentence was, of course, within the law. But being within the law does not always mean a sentence is appropriate. Legal scholars will be hard-pressed to find a first-offender sentence of Madoff proportions – the maximum statutory term imposed on each count, to be served consecutively. [. . .]
The court’s responsibility is to deliver justice, not respond to emotional tactics. The Madoff sentence – with its "symbolic" justification – failed a big test. . . .
In the meantime, this even more egregious sentence of a man who didn’t steal a dime from his company or investors continues to fade from our society’s consciousness.
A truly civil society would find a better way.
“I mean, really — what’s the point?”
Bernie Madoff is a disgusting human being who severely damaged the lives of numerous victims. It is actually unfortunate that he is not eligible for the death penalty. Whatever, he should minimally spend the rest of his life in prison. And I don’t believe that I’m speaking like some revenge seeking yahoo. No, this what is demanded by any just society that wishes to survive. If nothing else, Madoff’s imprisonment is a warning to other possible criminals.
David, putting aside for a moment the issue of whether it makes sense for the state to treat a non-violent criminal more harshly than a violent one, what purpose is served by a 150 year sentence for a 72 year old man? Even if it makes sense to imprison him for the rest of his life, 150 years is absurd and was assessed for some other purpose than punishing the defendant in this case.
Remember, accepting this type of absurd state action in a case such as Madoff’s only provides a veneer of legitimacy for even more egregious sentences such as the ones handed to Skilling, Jamie Olis and others.
No one can condone what Madoff did, but it would seem to me that he could find an appeals attorney who’d argue that, given the lack of violence associated with the crime, the sentence was not only absurd, but also tantamount to “cruel and unusual”.
Skilling and Olis should do the same thing.
As for the sentence being “cruel” I (of course) would have to disagree. The sentence was arrived at by following the normal sentencing guidelines. I also do not see how the sentence would considered “unusual.” An extended sentence in prison is not unusual.
The sentence is tantamount to a life sentence, we all agree on that. Life sentences are neither cruel nor unusual. The problem here is that the crime itself is of such outlandish proportions the sentencing guidelines seem outdated. The problem here isn’t the sentence. Rather, the problem is that the crime is so egregious. A harsh sentence for an egregious crime is hardly unreasonable.
Charles, while I agree what Madoff did was egregious, why is a life sentence the appropriate punishment? He is not a threat to society. Any deterrent effect from the life sentence is questionable, at best.
Why is not the better approach to give Madoff a stiff sentence (say, 10 years), take away all of his assets and give the proceeds to legitimate creditors and require Madoff to work in a community service program for the rest of his life? Sure seems more reasonable to me than having you and me subsidize Madoff’s existence in prison.
Tom,
I entirely agree with you that a non-violent offender would offer more value to society on the outside paying back in some way, shape or form instead of costing the taxpayers while incarcerated. California is having to revisit the issue of incarcerating non-violent offenders as a financial consideration. As a fairly wealthy nation, we have been able to squander resources in pursuing bad social policy. Maybe the California solution to dealing with non-violent offenders will offer some insight into optional policies that may be applied. That being said, we are still a nation with Puritan roots and our culture still demands some sort of punishment from those who upset our social order. Madoff may not have acted violently, but he most assuredly did upset the social order in his community.