Bernie Madoff seeks early release from prison due to terminal illness

[+ sniper]

Apparently much of the recovery was clawed back from the people who had pulled out early. So odds are they knew something was up.

[+ FreshFluff]

I’ve never understood what he talked to LE when they came to his door. I know he had lived with the secret for a long time and needed to tell someone, but why not ask for a lawyer?

I wonder if anyone who invested with Bernie ever questioned how he achieved his astronomical returns? Did they do much research or did excitement (greed?) Drive some investors?

 

In the deli escorts are often regarded as “TGTBT” I wonder if anyone considered that before investing?

 

Playing hard to get helped him mislead people. If he’s turning away investors, he must be legit.

 

Goldman and Renaissance wouldn’t touch him. Someone at Renaissance sent a memo questioning his returns.

[+ quoththeraven]

Being in prison is consistent with punishment and elimination of right to the pursuit of happiness. He did the crime, he does the time. Compassion to his disregards his victims.

How are his victims disregarded if he's sent home? I think they're disregarded by having to help pay for his care through their taxes when he bankrupted them!

 

I agree he likely shouldn't be released until it's clear he can't recover and goes into palliative care, but I am no expert in end-stage renal disease. If his life consists of dialysis treatment and not much else, I'm not sure it matters where he is, his quality of life is compromised. If he needs constant nursing attention, what difference does it make, and if the answer is "he shouldn't have comforts because he's in prison," to what extent does that amount to "he should only get minimal treatment because he's in prison and not everything we would otherwise provide if the patient weren't a notorious criminal"? That sounds to me like the treatment of his condition is being manipulated to be part of his punishment, which is what it's not supposed to be.

 

As for the right to the pursuit of happiness, you're confusing a rhetorical flourish from the Declaration of Independence with some sort of right and suggesting that prisoners don't get that. There is no such legally enforceable right (something Jefferson probably realized), but what rights prisoners do have suggest that they are just as entitled to pursue happiness within the circumstances they are in. Other than the terms of their confinement, they aren't meant to suffer more than others, and not even conservative judges are likely to take the view that prisoners who are ill are supposed to suffer more from their illness, or have treatment of their illness manipulated to make them worse off than the average unincarcerated person with the same condition, given the existence of a constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment.

[+ quoththeraven]

I wonder if anyone who invested with Bernie ever questioned how he achieved his astronomical returns? Did they do much research or did excitement (greed?) Drive some investors?

 

In the deli escorts are often regarded as “TGTBT” I wonder if anyone considered that before investing?

I don't know about any investors, but a financial advisor in Boston, Harry Markopolos, went to the SEC starting in 2001 (Madoff was arrested late in 2008) and sounded the alarm about the unrealistically high and consistent rates of return. (Especially that even in down markets the returns hardly ever showed losses of value.) Because Madoff was well-connected and had a good reputation from his sales ability and from having been instrumental in forming NASDAQ and having sat on its Board of Governors and been its chairman, the SEC didn't take the allegations seriously. In addition, his niece, his firm's in-house attorney, dated an SEC supervisor and later married him after he left the SEC.

[+ quoththeraven]

There were diligent investment entities that steered clear of Madoff. Made me think of the Keating 5 and how many retired folks lost everything due to Charles Keating's investment practices. Those folks thought they had chosen a safe investment class, and were not going for greedy returns.

Perhaps the benefit of diversifying is best learned the hard way.

Part of the reason some avoided Madoff's funds was the inability to do due diligence. Their accounting firm was small and they refused to provide documentation of the underlying investments.

[+ quoththeraven]

I’ve never understood what he talked to LE when they came to his door. I know he had lived with the secret for a long time and needed to tell someone, but why not ask for a lawyer?

 

 

Playing hard to get helped him mislead people. If he’s turning away investors, he must be legit.

 

Goldman and Renaissance wouldn’t touch him. Someone at Renaissance sent a memo questioning his returns.

Asking for a lawyer would only have postponed the inevitable. Also it was whistleblowing by one or both sons that brought law enforcement to his door.

 

Why yes, I just spent time reading the Wikipedia entry on Madoff and reacquainting myself with what happened, as well as learning some things I didn't know before.

[+ quoththeraven]

I'm having some difficulty relating your response to my posting. My "Me too" was a response to a JJKrkwood posting, not a BnaC posting. As I intended to convey in my wondering about notoriety, I totally agree that treatment should not depend on notoriety.

Sorry, that was confusing. Only the first paragraph was a response to you, more specifically the last sentence. The rest was mostly a response to @BnaC.

[+ quoththeraven]

I was going to mention in my post that he should assume financial responsibility for his care, but quite frankly, at his age, he is would be covered by Medicare and likely a secondary insurance, so there is little chance he will absorb the cost.

However there is quite a bit of difference between at home dialysis or an upscale dialysis center and a prison dialysis unit, even assuming he is on dialysis. He could have end stage disease but not have reached the stage of needing dialysis. In addition, the bed at home would probably be a lot more comfortable. The TV or choice of reading material a lot more luxurious. Nice silk PJs and nurse to cater to every need. 18 months of that, likely extending to several years, seems hardly a prison sentence, more like an elegant exit from a life of excess.

This was the most helpful information in the entire thread. I am a little surprised that there would even be a prison dialysis unit, though. That seems a lot less cost effective than sending him to a nearby hospital outpatient dialysis unit. Or are dialysis machines portable enough and inexpensive enough to rent to be installed in prison infirmaries on an as needed basis?

[+ FreshFluff]

I don't know about any investors, but a financial advisor in Boston, Harry Markopolos, went to the SEC starting in 2001 (Madoff was arrested late in 2008) and sounded the alarm about the unrealistically high and consistent rates of return. (Especially that even in down markets the returns hardly ever showed losses of value.) Because Madoff was well-connected and had a good reputation from his sales ability and from having been instrumental in forming NASDAQ and having sat on its Board of Governors and been its chairman, the SEC didn't take the allegations seriously. In addition, his niece, his firm's in-house attorney, dated an SEC supervisor and later married him after he left the SEC.

 

Markopolos sent the SEC a long, rambling, Unabomber manifesto-like letter. The title alone screams “crank.”

[+ sync]

Sorry, that was confusing. Only the first paragraph was a response to you, more specifically the last sentence. The rest was mostly a response to @BnaC.

Got it.

[+ quoththeraven]

Markopolos sent the SEC a long, rambling, Unabomber manifesto-like letter. The title alone screams “crank.”

I believe that was after he'd become exasperated that they weren't listening. And he wasn't the only one with expressed doubts.

 

Furthermore, he was right - it was a fraud, and a fraud in the way he thought was most likely (a Ponzi scheme rather than using front-running, which was the other possibility), its track record as reported in quarterly statements was impossible given market conditions, and the congressional panel he testified before after the arrest didn't treat him as a crank in this regard.

[+ FreshFluff]

I believe that was after he'd become exasperated that they weren't listening. And he wasn't the only one with expressed doubts.

 

Furthermore, he was right - it was a fraud, and a fraud in the way he thought was most likely (a Ponzi scheme rather than using front-running, which was the other possibility), its track record as reported in quarterly statements was impossible given market conditions, and the congressional panel he testified before after the arrest didn't treat him as a crank in this regard.

 

Of course he was right. It’s the writing style that’s the problem. Obviously, Madoff’s connections helped too.

[+ purplekow]

This was the most helpful information in the entire thread. I am a little surprised that there would even be a prison dialysis unit, though. That seems a lot less cost effective than sending him to a nearby hospital outpatient dialysis unit. Or are dialysis machines portable enough and inexpensive enough to rent to be installed in prison infirmaries on an as needed basis?

The cost of dialysis is exorbitant, With transportation of prisoners to hospitals, you have the cost of the personnel who must go with him and stay there for several hours. You have the risk of a breach of security. Many hospitals do not do outpatient dialysis only inpatient dialysis. So if his care was done outside the prison, it is likely he would be going to a private facility. They can usually fill their chairs (places on dialysis are usually referred to as chairs not beds) without the added issue of having prisoners coming and going several times a week. In addition, m there are many prisoners who are likely to need dialysis as a result of untreated diseases such as hypertension before they got into the prison system. IV drug use adds to the risk of the need for dialysis,

Given the high cost of out of prison care, the security risk s from prisoner transport, the significant need for prisoners to have the service and the scheduling issues for dialysis units, a small 2 to 4 chair dialysis units makes sense if the prison is large enough,

Here is an ad for a company that supplies such services to prisons:

https://physiciansdialysis.com/services/correctional-dialysis/

[+ purplekow]

I found an old article from the NYT in 2014 in which the Texas Correctional facilities had 1% of their prison population on dialysis

That was 228 men and they were anticipating an additional 99 in the next year, The article makes the point about risk of kidney disease among prisoners being higher due to the demographics of the prison population, Interestingly, the article mentions that survey of prison compliance with medication revealed that prisoners were only 55% compliant with their medications, about the same rate as outpatient compliance. You would think that you have a captive population, so that compliance with medical regimens would be much more successful. Appartently not, No reason was given for the lack of adherence, They did mention the wasted cost of these medications not being used.

Taking the number od dialysis patients as 400 and considering that a single chair can service four patients a day and with a usual frequency of dialysis of three days a week, you have a need for 300 chairs, 30 ten chair units would be pretty busy.

Cost per patient per year for hospital dialysis is about $100000. So $40 million per year for Texas. They can get the costs to half of that probably, if they keep it in house, so that the outlay would be expensive but the long term savings considerable.

Edited February 9, 2020 by purplekow

[Guest]

How are his victims disregarded if he's sent home? I think they're disregarded by having to help pay for his care through their taxes when he bankrupted them!

.

The cost of incarceration is the price of society’s compassion for the criminal. Incarceration is the price of the crime. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

we can have incarceration without compassion at a very low cost. So the decision to make it costly is a choice unrelated to the sentence or the crime.

Edited February 9, 2020 by BnaC

[+ purplekow]

The cost of incarceration is the price of society’s compassion for the criminal. Incarceration is the price of the crime. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

we can have incarceration without compassion at a very low cost. So the decision to make it costly is a choice unrelated to the sentence or the crime.

White collar criminals are much more likely to be incarcerated in a more luxurious facility compared to murderers. So the nature of the crime does influence the type of facility in which criminal are held. Usually the richer the criminal , the more luxurious the accommodations.

[+ sniper]

The cost of incarceration is the price of society’s compassion for the criminal. Incarceration is the price of the crime. The two are mutually exclusive.

 

we can have incarceration without compassion at a very low cost. So the decision to make it costly is a choice unrelated to the sentence or the crime.

It's not about compassion. It's about the fact that if you deprive someone of their liberty, you can't do so in conditions that facilitate loss of their life. You have a duty of care to people in your charge. It's an obligation, it's not optional.

[Guest]

How are his victims disregarded if he's sent home? I think they're disregarded by having to help pay for his care through their taxes when he bankrupted them!

 

I agree he likely shouldn't be released until it's clear he can't recover and goes into palliative care, but I am no expert in end-stage renal disease. If his life consists of dialysis treatment and not much else...

 

So shouldn't the victims get to have a say if that's what you believe? I'm sure almost none, if any, of his victims are bothered that they're contributing to his incarceration. Dialysis is NOT palliative care. It's three 3-hour sessions per week. Or one can even do peritoneal dialysis, where you don't even have to go in for dialysis treatment.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peritoneal_dialysis

And what if he goes on dialysis then gets a kidney transplant? Sending him home early really would really send the wrong message both to the victims and to any future criminals who would consider doing what he's doing. He really should breathe his last breath in prison. The magnitude of his crimes demands it.

[+ g56whiz]

You have a duty of care to people in your charge. It's an obligation, it's not optional.

That’s an opinion thT doesn’t seem to be shared by legislators in the State of Mississippi.

[Guest]

White collar criminals are much more likely to be incarcerated in a more luxurious facility compared to murderers. So the nature of the crime does influence the type of facility in which criminal are held. Usually the richer the criminal , the more luxurious the accommodations.

That’s not this point...I’m not even sure how that comment is relevant to the thread...

It's not about compassion. It's about the fact that if you deprive someone of their liberty, you can't do so in conditions that facilitate loss of their life. You have a duty of care to people in your charge. It's an obligation, it's not optional.

He’s going to be treated with an appropriate standard of care. He will however be deprived of the “loving bosom” of his family (that I doubt wants him anyway). He is servicing a 150 yr sentence....he was not intended to see freedom again.

[Nebost]

He’s an asshole. He should die in prison.

 

They've recovered $14.3 billion....which is 75 cents on the dollar....which means

best case senario his victims still lost about 4.77 BILLION dollars.

 

I know quite a few people’s lives that were completely destroyed by this man.

 

Let him rot.

 

Just want to point out the recovery of 75% is based on initial investment amount, not latest account statement. So if you invested $1million with Madoff, 10 years later your statement might show you have $4 million. But the amount recovered is more like 750K. A -25% return on investment after 10 years is a really depressing rate of return, but I suppose much better than nothing at all.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recovery_of_funds_from_the_Madoff_investment_scandal

[+ purplekow]

That’s not this point...I’m not even sure how that comment is relevant to the thread...

 

He’s going to be treated with an appropriate standard of care. He will however be deprived of the “loving bosom” of his family (that I doubt wants him anyway). He is servicing a 150 yr sentence....he was not intended to see freedom again.

Did I misunderstand your sentence: So the decision to make it costly is a choice unrelated to the sentence or the crime?

[Guest]

Did I misunderstand your sentence: So the decision to make it costly is a choice unrelated to the sentence or the crime?

Apparently so. My complete statement related related to a mutually exclusive relationship between compassion and sentence.

we can have incarceration without compassion at a very low cost. So the decision to make it costly is a choice unrelated to the sentence or the crime.

[+ sniper]

That’s not this point...I’m not even sure how that comment is relevant to the thread...

 

He’s going to be treated with an appropriate standard of care. He will however be deprived of the “loving bosom” of his family (that I doubt wants him anyway). He is servicing a 150 yr sentence....he was not intended to see freedom again.

 

You said the cost of incarceration is the cost of compassion. That is patently not true. The vast majority of the cost of incarceration is the cost of meeting the minimal standard of care the state owes people in its total control(building costs, round the clock security, surveillance). Making it more pleasant really wouldn't cost all that much as a percentage of costs. The majority of the costs are the building and building security, not comfort items. And making it more unpleasant (e.g. shitty food) doesn't really save all that much.

[Guest]

You said the cost of incarceration is the cost of compassion. That is patently not true. The vast majority of the cost of incarceration is the cost of meeting the minimal standard of care the state owes people in its total control(building costs, round the clock security, surveillance). Making it more pleasant really wouldn't cost all that much as a percentage of costs. The majority of the costs are the building and building security, not comfort items. And making it more unpleasant (e.g. shitty food) doesn't really save all that much.

Well then, if you don't believe me, compare the modern prison to the $h!thole prisons of the past. The cost of the building is a one time cost. The cost of security is often the cost of protecting one prisoner from another. The cost of maintaining a prisoner is higher than the median household income in America. The cost of incarceration IS the cost of compassion.