[w1andsodidwe]

I have always thought that incarceration should be reserved for those who are a physical danger to other. I think there are ways to punish him without putting him in jail.

Granted these a very different levels of crime, but I never understood the imprisonment of Martha Stuart. Why should we waste our money paying the room and board for these kinds of people.

Punish them harshly monetarily, put them on house arrest, monitor their ability to do the same crime again are all fine. But wasting thousands of dollars every year for providing food and clothing is just unnecessary.

[dervish]

“but I never understood the imprisonment of Martha Stuart”

Me neither. She did nothing. She was as guilty as Scooter Libby.

[spetznaz]

I have to disagree. There are certain types of financial crime that require incarceration, even though the person may not be a 'physical danger' to someone else. To be honest with you, I would actually prefer all those 2-dollar marijuana peddlars (many of which are in prison) be set free, and fill the jails instead with those who are higher up in the hierachy. Filling the jails with people who are normally replaced before the end of a day is just another futile aspect of the war on drugs. I'd rather switch one of those foolish oafs with Madoff, who I consider far worse to the general public than some fool caught in the corner with 100 Dollars worth of weed in their ridiculous sagging pants! It would be better use of public funds putting a criminal like Madoff in gaol rather than a criminal too dumb to even wear a belt right.

As for simple house arrest and a stiff monetary fine ....it would work for the simple Joes down the street. But look at Madoff ...his home (which he judiciously had his wife take ownership of ....interestingly enough, the principals in his 'Fund' had their wives do the same thing as well ...I guess it is mere coincidence ....) is opulent to such an extent that it is better than most hotels short of certain 5-stars out there by a significant margin. Oh, and if he has a net worth of (say) 300-800 million, even taking away 90% of that would leave him with 30-80 million, and even if you took 99% he would still have 3-8 million (oh, and you can be sure they wouldn't take such percentages, and even IF they did he has transfered enough to his wife that even if he lost 100% of his - from a legal perspective - assets, his wife would still have millions of Dollars for the both of them to live a life of opulence). Putting him under house arrest would be a positive boon to this sot, and the way he is playing this thing legally is quite prudent (if he pulls it off). If the transfer to his wife sticks, it will mean that even if they strip away his assets his spouse will still have more than enough for the both of them to live their lives in splendor.

Anyways, if it is alright for prisons to waste thousands a year providing food and clothing for silly people who got caught peddling weed (and are so low in the totem pole they probably didn't even have more than a hundred bucks worth), and people who did not pay taxes, and folks who shoplifted from the local Target ....then it is probably quite alright to throw a man who ran the biggest private (i.e. non-Government) ponzi scheme in history, with a value (were it real) of around US$ 50 billion. After all, if you can throw Hakeen in the slammer for weed possession, and Mr. Smithee into the ar$e pounder for not paying taxes, then for sure Madoff deserves a prime position in the same place.