June 29, 2009
Madoff gets sentenced to max of 150 years in federal prison!
Early reports from the MSM says Bernie Madoff gets the max from Judge Denny Chin, 150 years in federal prison, which was the most he could get for all the counts to which Madoff pled guilty. Of course, with a possible 15% off for good behavior, Madoff could get out as early at 2138.
Here is early coverage from the Wall Street Journal:
Bernard Madoff was sentenced to 150 years in prison Monday, meaning he will likely spend the rest of his life behind bars after admitting in March to running one of the largest and longest financial frauds in recent memory.
At a packed hearing Monday, U.S. District Judge Denny Chin in Manhattan ordered Mr. Madoff, 71 years old, to serve the statutory maximum sentence in prison. Applause briefly broke out after the sentence was announced....
"Here the message must be sent that Mr. Madoff's crimes were extraordinary evil," Judge Chin said.
June 29, 2009 at 11:35 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Madoff gets sentenced to max of 150 years in federal prison!:
Although Madoff did not go to trial, it was a very high profile case.
Research on sentencing reveals numerous case-related and extralegal influences on incarceration and sentence length determinations. One such case-related variable is the case disposition. Indeed, studies consistently find that substantial differences in incarceration length between offenders who go to trial and those who plead guilty. Often referred to as “trial penalties”, studies typically statistically control for this disparity in modeling other sentencing relationships. The current study specifically examines potential variations in the trial penalty. In particular, we theorize that defendants in high-profile cases or in cases that evoke public fear or hostility, such as in terrorist cases, may be particularly likely to be penalized by going to trial. Using data from the American Terrorism Study and the U.S. Sentencing Commission, we investigate variations in trial penalties among terrorist and non-terrorist convictions. Analyses suggest that, although a trial penalty exists across cases, the extent of the cost paid by defendants for going to trial varies substantially across terrorist status. Drawing on focal concerns and structural-contextual paradigms, we then discuss these findings and their implications.
Posted by: George | Jun 29, 2009 12:01:34 PM
What was the ruling on restitution? Having ordered a criminal forfeiture on Friday of all of Madoff's assets -- but for a sweet deal to leave his wife over $2 million to live on -- thus transferring ownership of it all to the U.S. government just prior to sentencing, the victims are left with no rights at all and little recourse, as I see it. (Remission of forfeiture to victims is in the AG's unreviewable discretion, and a cumbersome and due-process-free system.) It seems to me that the forfeiture order in this case violated the victims' rights to restitution under the VWPA and CVRA, as protected by 18 USC 3572(b) (no criminal penalty, which would include criminal forfeiture, to be imposed if it impairs the defendant's ability to pay restitution). Perhaps one or more victims will bring a mandamus under the Crime Victims Rights Act against this sentence, for favoring the government's pecuniary interest (forfeiture) over the victims' (restitution).
Posted by: Peter G | Jun 29, 2009 12:19:46 PM
I don't have the full reference, but I believe the justice department has already said that it intends to use the forfeited assets to provide restitution to victims.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jun 29, 2009 12:28:02 PM
If that's so, Marc, then ordering forfeiture with the intention of a later remission process, rather than forfeiture, shifts control of the allocation of available resources to victims from the Judiciary, where there is a more transparent and legally regulated, statutory procedure, to the Executive (with unreviewable discretion and no standards).
Posted by: Peter G | Jun 29, 2009 12:46:30 PM
CORRECTION: Instead of "ordering forfeiture with the intention of a later remission process, rather than forfeiture ...," of course I meant to write, "ordering forfeiture with the intention of a later remission process, RATHER THAN RESTITUTION, shifts control of the allocation of resources available to victims from the Judiciary, where there is a more transparent and legally regulated, statutory procedure, to the Executive (with unreviewable discretion and no standards)."
Posted by: Peter G | Jun 29, 2009 2:39:33 PM
why waste tax payers money and put him to death
Posted by: debt settlement | Jun 29, 2009 5:55:38 PM
Here's the sentencing transcript: http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/06/29/madoff.sentence.transcript.pdf
Posted by: DEJ | Jun 30, 2009 12:19:37 AM
Will Madoff's sentence satisfy the vctims of his wrongdoings?
I would say not! I think that those who benefited from his crime
should face civil suits placed by the victims.
Posted by: Derrick Patterson | Jun 30, 2009 1:52:21 AM
it intends to use the forfeited assets to provide restitution to victims.Will Madoff's sentence satisfy the victims of his wrongdoings?
I would say not..
Posted by: london | Jun 30, 2009 3:21:48 AM
When having dinners, authentic linksoflondon will let you become the incarnation of nobility and elegance. And if white and smooth skins match with red or dark-colored jewels, the result will be perfect. These plump ladies and shining jewels are a perfect match from which a sense of nobility and dignity will be revealed. It is more likely for the young ladies to choose the links of london which are unique, shining, and colorful.
Posted by: links_life | Jun 30, 2009 5:39:42 AM
afterall, we still have to support his living for the rest of his life. just pathetic.
BTW, I am just a normal people.
Posted by: little los angeles | Jun 30, 2009 10:21:47 AM