Slashdot Mirror
Madoff Sentenced To 150 Years
selven was one of several readers to send in the news that Bernie Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison. "Bernard Madoff's victims gasped and cheered when he was sentenced to 150 years in prison, but they walked away knowing little more about how he carried out the biggest robbery in Wall Street history. In one of the most dramatic courtroom conclusions to a corporate fraud case, the 71-year-old swindler was unemotional as he was berated by distraught investors during the 90-minute proceeding. Many former clients had hoped he would shed more light on his crime and explain why he victimized so many for so long. But he did not. Madoff called his crime 'an error of judgment' and his 'failure,' reiterating previous statements that he alone was responsible for the $65 billion investment fraud. His victims said they did not hear much new from Madoff in his five-minute statement. They also said they did not believe anything he said. As he handed down the maximum penalty allowed, US District Judge Denny Chin... [said], 'I simply do not get the sense that Mr. Madoff has done all that he could or told all that he knows.'"
I've thought this since news of the scandal broke:
You know why Bernie Madoff seems to be very complacent about the whole thing? Because his sons got off scot-free. Madoff is quite fine with sacrificing his freedom for the rest of his life... there are few things more [noble? gratifying?] than sacrificing yourself for your children.
I still believe it very unlikely that Bernie's sons didn't knowingly participate in this... or at least were aware of it. The whole way that the story broke... Madoff confessed to his son when he caught him trying to cover it up or something... then the sons convincing him to turn himself in...
I think Bernie is at least partly taking the fall for his sons. I only wish we could find out the whole truth.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
I'm sure Madoff operated with that understanding (hey, he can't be stupid), yet still got caught in spite of that. I don't really think this sends any message anyone wasn't already aware of.
The message before today was, "and if you get caught, you get 3-10 years, then you're back out and you'll be rich."
A lot of people take these sorts of risks under the impression that, worst case, they spend a few years in jail, and they're fine with the prospect of trading a few years of their life in exchange for wealth far beyond their natural means.
Now the message is, "if you get caught, your life is ruined."
Excuse me, but...
I lost my job over this when my employer tanked because of Madoff's scam, and I never had a dime invested with him. This has affected all kinds of people!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Which honestly is pointless. Should Madoff be banned from operating a company? Sure. Should he have to return his stolen goods and pay back the people he scammed? Yes. Should he be forced to liquefy most of his assets to help pay back? Yes. Should he be in prison not just scamming people once but effectively scamming the taxpayers. No. Prison should be reserved for only dangerous people who committed violent crimes and need to be put away for a while so they don't go back into crime and when they get out of prison they for the most part should be rehabilitated and able to live a normal life (with perhaps a few restrictions such as banning the sale/possession of firearms form violent criminals). Madoff is not a danger to society. And before you try to use a reasoning of "setting an example" that is not justice. No matter how much he scammed, he does not belong in jail. He should be working the rest of his life making small payments to pay for those he scammed. Prison is not the place for non-violent criminals, those should be placed on house arrest, have fines, restrictions or be placed on probation. Why should my tax dollars pay to lock away someone who wouldn't threaten anyone's lives, property, etc if he was out on the streets (with again restrictions on what he can and can't do economically).
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
There are some sicknesses that socialized healthcare either will not cover or will not cover thoroughly enough to really cure.
Name one.
In the U.K., under the NICE system, they set a price limit on every condition. If they can save a year of life for about $50,000, they will do it. If it costs more than that, NICE recommends against it, but if people complain about it, the government usually gives in and pays for it anyway. They try to avoid giving out $100,000 drugs that have minimal effectiveness, but they treat long-term conditions better than we do in the U.S.
The U.K. is the cheapest, stingiest system in Europe. Sweden probably has the best care in the world.
But even in the US you can usually get on so many programs and with the aid of various non-profits and a good story in the newspaper or TV news station get enough help to get the care you need.
I just spent several days on the phone over the last few months trying to help a friend of mine who lost his job and health insurance get on Medicaid, so I know something about what actually happens. The city welfare agency just delayed his application for months. He had one condition that required lifetime medication to save his life, so it was a serious business. I made half a dozen calls to those non-profits and got nowhere.
But don't take my word for it. Here's a story in the Wall Street Journal that demonstrates how you can die in the U.S. if you can't afford health care. http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06339/743713-84.stm The WSJ had a whole series like that. (This is for people who don't believe Michael Moore.)
Granted, you will probably be in debt till you die, but even if you are poor you can usually *get* the initial treatments
As the WSJ story shows, that's not true.
but with socialized healthcare you get placed in "review hell" because A) the doctors get paid the same really no matter what they do and B) there are many other doctors/clinics.
So how come the Mayo Clinic, where doctors are on salary and get paid the same whatever they do, has some of the best outcomes in the country?
If you say you need antibiotics for something, chances are in the US you can get them for whatever weak reason,
That's supposed to be a benefit? If you take antibiotics when you don't need them, you're growing antibiotic-resistant bacteria, which could kill you later.
with socialized healtcare if you have a non-common illness the answer will always be to wait longer.
Ridiculous. I just read an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in which French doctors described how they were treating cryopyrin-associated periodic syndrome in their socialist system. Is that non-common enough for you? They were using canakinumab, which will probably cost tens of thousands of dollars per year.