For some, Madoff might as well have held a gun to their head and pulled the trigger."
Playing devil's advocate... He didn't hold a gun to the victims' heads and steal their money, he put up a scam where people participated. He wasn't a highway robber, he was a conman. Let's keep this clear.
I mean, you make it sound like "scamming" actually forces people to come along. It doesn't. Didn't -- or couldn't -- the victims do any checking? Why did they invest money they obviously urgently needed for their own purposes? Madoff is definitely a criminal (and an immoral fucking bastard) but isn't there any -- even the smallest iota -- of fiscal responsibility with the people who decided to make money out of his offering? Any at all? I mean, every investment in immaterial goods is a risk, right?
I guess I'll get flamed to the moon and back and modded down to hell for saying what I just did. I understand the human suffering that has resulted from this scam (I really am not an insensitive clod) but I object to how "the scam resulted in" gets equated to "he caused" suicides, fatal maltreatment, and children starving to death due to charities gone bankrupt.
I guess I'm not making my point very clear because it's still a bit hazy for me too what it is I wanted to say... I just felt there was something to point out... Well, a possibly related anecdote: in Finland there was a public outrage when a multiple rapist got a lighter sentence than some embezzlers. The latter caused a lot of damage and indirectly a lot of suffering, but people saw that the act is just not anywhere near the same as raping. Regardless of the scale and end results of the financial crime.
Madoff should have got life, not 150 years which is more than anybody has received for a murder in the USA. (There has been longer sentences but those have been combined out of serial crimes.) Life would be on par, not more than. Okay, I do welcome comments to show me what I got wrong here.