Is Madoff worse than a child molester?
29 June 2009 5:27 pm by Jane Austen
http://www.taylormarsh.com/2009/06/29/is-madoff-worse-than-a-child-molester/
The answer to your question Taylor is a resounding NO! That they would even compare Madoff’s crime to that of a child molester shows just what value they put on the destruction of a child. I’m inclined to agree with you that people are responsible for where and with whom they invest their money. A child who is molested has no such protection.
As to Madoff’s sentence, it was overkill. The man is 71 years old. Whether they sentenced him to 20 years, 30 years, or even 12 years the odds are that he will die in prison. Don’t get me wrong, I have absolutely no sympathy for this man but the sentence could be said to be a form of “mob vengance.”
This post was submitted by Jane Austen.
No tags for this post.
um… I’m the one making the SENTENCE comparison to a child molester, JA, just to be clear. The child molester got less time than Madoff, which begged the question I asked.
No one should have sympathy for Madoff.
But 150 years? Overkill, and it doesn’t solve the problem OR ANSWER THE REMAINING QUESTIONS.
Sorry for the misunderstanding. Too much sun today. But my explanation still stands. I don’t think there’s any worse crime than child molestation so I understand your point.
I don’t think that Madoff’s sentence will stop anyone from coming up with another type of scheme unless the safeguards are there. I’ve always been under the impression that someone, whether it was the SEC, or whoever, was responsible for monitoring people who claimed to be investors for other people’s money. I may be totally off base because I’ve had little to invest nor would I even think of putting what little money I have in one of these schemes. To me it sounded to good to be true, from what I read.
BTW – His wife is running for the hills, isn’t she? I still think she knew to a certain extent what he was doing.
Is Madoff worse than a child molester?
He as bad as they come on the scale of scum.
The sentence did not take into account his remaining life expectancy (why should it?) or other mitigating factors presented by the defense.
It reflects the massive devastation wrought by a cold hearted, soulless, lying, thief and the 100 of lives left decimated in his wake.
So he got the maximum asked for 150 years. But no one ever envisioned (or could conceive of) a multi-billion dollar rape of so many families.
MORE arrests are in the works, including perhaps a couple with the same last name, stand-by.
A point was being made about the enormity of his “white collar” crime. A far, far shorter sentence would also have been a “life sentence.”
No, he’s not worse than a child molester. The sentence he got told a story about what Bernie Madoff did to thousands of people. Do you think any of those people might have committed suicide? – even murder suicide? No, I don’t know either – but what is clear is that Bernie Madoff destroyed many, many lives.
The sentence he received today was only meaningful in what it meant to communicate about “white collar crime” and those who feel free to commit it. Bernie Madoff expected a life sentence, I believe, and he would have gotten a life sentence with a much, much shorter sentence. In my opinion, that would have been unjust. But, that is my opinion.
A very interesting post.
…In a capitalistic society, every citizen investor is responsible for his or her investment decisions. Government can only do so much…
The above is a true, valid statement along with the rest of the post.
One of our “national characteristics” is the current issuing of blame. Just going back a few years to the Enron fiasco. The employees of that company lost a lot money because their 401ks were heavily tilted with Enron stock. Besides covering the scandal the media also covered the “employee investment side” of the story.
Basically it came down to this: People have to be responsible for their own finances, people have to diversify their portfolio’s, they lost money, to bad, a tough lesson.
Why the change? In this country are things too interconnected? Business, media, politics? That when something bad happens the blame has to be shifted to somebody / something else in a simplistic way?
Is Madoff a poster boy of the financial mess / or sacrificial lamb for other people’s lack of judgement, advice and personal responsibility?
Do we have a “someone has to be blamed, just not me” mentality?
At the height of the housing bubble if you rented, instead of buying, (All you needed was a pulse to get a mortgage) you were a idiotic, foolish person. Everyone said it.
A little bitter humor from Dilbert:
http://www.dilbert.com/strips/comic/2009-06-26/?Page=3
update:
AP: (Source says) 10 Others To Be Charged In Madoff Probe
A person, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the investigation is ongoing, wouldn’t detail potential charges or say whether the 10 would include Madoff’s family or former employees. So far, only Madoff and an accountant accused of failing to make basic auditing checks have been criminally charged in the multibillion-dollar hoax.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_madoff_scandal
guyski says:
30 June 2009 at 4:46 am
Do we have a “someone has to be blamed, just not me” mentality?
____
I’m responsible for signing agreements that promise me honest reports on my investments. so….
If someone sends me a monthly statement that says I’m up 220% over 5 years and in reality I’m near 0% total;, then yes. I blame that prison for committing a crime against me. In this case that person knowingly defrauded… It’s now not about “placing blame” but assigning responsibility.
If my mechanic says he rebuilt my transmission I trust his words until I find out it’s sawdust he packed it with to mask that awful clunking sound…
Madoff’s fraudulent statements of return were nothing but sawdust.
But so many missed those lying eyes of his.
GeoT
I’m with you on this one. A crook is a crook.
heh-heh… Nice Dilbert, guyski.
As to Enron, I’m still of the belief that is quite different, as the Rep. had their hand in that one, because they wanted to governorship.
A crook is a crook, can’t deny that. But, this was basically a pyramid scheme. So one should ask exactly how much “due diligence” the investors took? Or was it something more in the line of person A telling person B “you can’t go wrong with this one.” And since a person is getting a good percentage (making money) on their return. Why ask questions?
Guyski wins. “A telling person B” is *exactly* what happened on this one.
Moral of this story: friends are friends and business is business and never mix up the two.
Jon Stewart wins:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=231588&title=150-years-of-solitude