More on Madoff sentence

Lots of opinions on the 150-year sentence handed down. As I posted yesterday, the over-the-top jail term seems more vindictive than purposeful (the guy is going to die in prison, no matter what). But I seem to be in the minority. Here's a sampling of comments:

From LABO reader Todd Frankel...
"The long sentences may bring some solace to those victims, who, while rebuilding their lives, can at least take some comfort knowing that Madoff's liberty is suspended forever. The more interesting political question is whether the Congress will take the appropriate action in light of what the court has done."

From LABO reader Jack McGrath...
"Madoff's sentence might convince a future Madoff type to not go into the Ponzi business. If one of these future Madoff types, changes his mind due to fear, then the sentence was worthwhile. I am 63, and if my savings were wiped out, I could only look forward to living my final senior years as a pauper. Madoff is worse than a killer. He economically destroyed hundreds of lives."

From LABO reader Ned Roberts...
"I am not a lawyer but I believe that issuing long sentences ensures that the prisoner will indeed spend life in prison. During my lifetime I have witnessed prisoners who were sentenced to life in prison get out after about 7 years. A 150-year sentence means that Madoff will indeed serve life in prison. It also sends a message intended to deter other miscreants."

From Eli Lehrer, senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute...
"Even a 12-year sentence is a pretty severe punishment. His life expectancy is 13 years and the rigors of prison life -- particularly for a man used to living at the height of luxury -- hardly seem likely to extend that. Even with the shortest sentence on the table, Madoff would probably die in prison anyway. The sentence length he received is little more than a bit of judicial showmanship. It has no useful purpose."

From Bethany McLean, contributing editor, Vanity Fair...
"I think it does send an important message. Whether it serves as a deterrent or not is an open question. You've seen a rapid increase in the sentences that white-collar criminals have gotten, and I don't think you've seen any slowdown in the amount of fraud. I remember writing, after the verdicts in the Enron case, saying that these verdicts would send a huge message to Wall Street that operating in the grey zone was no longer permissible and would be punished. And I've been proven radically wrong no shorter than five years later. So I've become a lot more skeptical about the idea that anything is a deterrent to white-collar fraud."