Must be nasty to be raped by a prison.Ya think?
How did a topic of loseing 80 acres of american soil to foreign invades get into a legal disscussion. Not that I haven't enjoyed it but still.
I like debateing and BT and I are so opposed in veiw point it's facinating to read his responses( no mattter how misguided:-)< -- sarcasm in case it wasn't apparent, please do not take the sarcasm seriously as it tends to scare it.
As the one who drove it onto new rails (I perfer that term ;p), I can answer that:
This thread was founded on the assumption that illegal immigration was a significant cause of drug running.
I answered that the only relation the two have is that drug runners also sometimes smuggle people into the country, and the real fuel for the drug war - at least on this end of the country - comes from the US prison system.
As for prison brutalization...
I don't care how "bad" the criminal is. It's not ok. It's not funny. Ever.
|
Motorcylces and scooters can carry passenger the same as a car, granted not multiple passenger (well I guess with a sidecar you can even carry multiple passengers).... I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies ...Where do "seat-belt laws" fit with this?I think I'm reluctantly OK with seat belt laws. It's hard to control the vehicle if you aren't in the drivers seat.
Helmet laws on the other hand I'm not OK with.
I was pulled over and given a ticket and the only one in the car was me. Apparently I'm a very bad criminal.
My point(s) with that has to do with -- I'm just not sure why people are so surprised that the government won't necessarily let us "do whatever we wish to our bodies". Whether it be drugs or jay-walking. The other thing is, unless you are living on a deserted island in the middle of no where, can we ever truly say that what we do won't affect anyone else? If I was in an accident and was seriously injured (or died) because I didn't have a seat-belt on, does anyone really think that I would have been the only one affected by it? I just feel that the "we should be allowed to do whatever we want to ourselves" is a poor argument either way. (And selfish.)
I thought it was firmly on track. Illegal immigrants = criminals = deserving of being raped.
Solve for why.
Motorcylces and scooters can carry passenger the same as a car, granted not multiple passenger (well I guess with a sidecar you can even carry multiple passengers).... I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies ...Where do "seat-belt laws" fit with this?I think I'm reluctantly OK with seat belt laws. It's hard to control the vehicle if you aren't in the drivers seat.
Helmet laws on the other hand I'm not OK with.
I was pulled over and given a ticket and the only one in the car was me. Apparently I'm a very bad criminal.
My point(s) with that has to do with -- I'm just not sure why people are so surprised that the government won't necessarily let us "do whatever we wish to our bodies". Whether it be drugs or jay-walking. The other thing is, unless you are living on a deserted island in the middle of no where, can we ever truly say that what we do won't affect anyone else? If I was in an accident and was seriously injured (or died) because I didn't have a seat-belt on, does anyone really think that I would have been the only one affected by it? I just feel that the "we should be allowed to do whatever we want to ourselves" is a poor argument either way. (And selfish.)
If you don't get to decide what to do to yourself then who should?
Do we own ourselves or not? If we don't then who does?
Supposing that drugs and other sorts of self-harm were legalized, what do you think should happen when someone renders themselves a casualty of said behaviors? Should society pay for top-notch care for those whose own addictions and behaviors have turned them into medical basket cases?
Regarding drug laws and crime:
I work for a housing area.
Dealing with someone who's been partying hard is difficult. Dealing with a large group of people who've been drinking is nightmarish. If one person swings, it very quickly becomes a mob of people who are now ver angry, very aggressive, very violent, and have their pain sensitivity cut down. When we have issues with an ongoing party, one of our biggest priorities is to ensure nobody makes that first swing.
This is completely legal. For that matter, I have no desire to illegalize alcohol.
By current country laws, if an adult commits a crime while under the influence, they are charged for that crime. The same would apply to any other theoretical influence they could potentially be under. Being drunk isn't an excuse now, why would "I was high" be an excuse in the future?
Supposing that drugs and other sorts of self-harm were legalized, what do you think should happen when someone renders themselves a casualty of said behaviors? Should society pay for top-notch care for those whose own addictions and behaviors have turned them into medical basket cases?
You mean like we do now for alcohol and smokes?
Must be nasty to be raped by a prison.Ya think?
How did a topic of loseing 80 acres of american soil to foreign invades get into a legal disscussion. Not that I haven't enjoyed it but still.
I like debateing and BT and I are so opposed in veiw point it's facinating to read his responses( no mattter how misguided:-)< -- sarcasm in case it wasn't apparent, please do not take the sarcasm seriously as it tends to scare it.
The funny thing is I believe we both self identify as conservatives.
Supposing that drugs and other sorts of self-harm were legalized, what do you think should happen when someone renders themselves a casualty of said behaviors? Should society pay for top-notch care for those whose own addictions and behaviors have turned them into medical basket cases?
No, but I oppose virtually all government health care.
"But you were always a good man of business, Jacob," faltered Scrooge, who now began to apply this to himself.
"Business!" cried the Ghost, wringing its hands again. "Mankind was my business. The common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance, and benevolence, were, all, my business. The dealings of my trade were but a drop of water in the comprehensive ocean of my business!"
|
|
If you don't get to decide what to do to yourself then who should?
Do we own ourselves or not? If we don't then who does?
The whole line of reasoning gets fuzzy very quickly. There are a lot of people in the world who don't look at the big picture. Should we let them decide? Should we not let them have a voice because they don't see the big picture?
In theory, we have put people in charge who we are trusting to make these decisions for all. At least that's the theory of it.
If you don't get to decide what to do to yourself then who should?
Do we own ourselves or not? If we don't then who does?
The whole line of reasoning gets fuzzy very quickly. There are a lot of people in the world who don't look at the big picture. Should we let them decide? Should we not let them have a voice because they don't see the big picture?
In theory, we have put people in charge who we are trusting to make these decisions for all. At least that's the theory of it.
Should we let people who don't look at the big picture decide what? They certainly have the right to decide what to do with themselves. Stupid people should have freedom too. We may not like the choices they make, but if they don't directly hurt someone else why do we have the right to use force to make them make the choices we think they should make. That is what this all comes down to.
What virtue do the people in charge have that enables them to make better choices for you than you?
In theory, we have put people in charge who we are trusting to make these decisions for all. At least that's the theory of it.
Whoah! Not at all. We put people in charge whose job it is to, as uniformly as possibly, oversee that we do not wilfully deprive one another of life and property, and to render judgment in such cases where this has occurred. We don't hire them to make our decisions for us, nor to protect us from all possible harm ("I, Robot" style) -- certainly not in theory, and I'd like to see it work out less in practice, as well.
This thread was founded on the assumption that illegal immigration was a significant cause of drug running.
The same gangs that smuggle illegal immigrants in also smuggle in drugs. On the way home, the gang members smuggle stolen goods into Mexico. The hordes of illegal immigrants help them hide their more harmful criminal activities.
...and the real fuel for the drug war - at least on this end of the country - comes from the US prison system.
The vast majority of drug dealers establish criminal ties long before they see the inside of a cell. Most inmates have literally dozens of crimes on their record before they get prison time. Criminal street gangs belong to networks of more serious criminals (such as prison gangs), which recruit promising young criminals before their crimes are serious enough to draw felony time.
As for prison brutalization...
I don't care how "bad" the criminal is. It's not ok. It's not funny. Ever.
I would agree that prison rape is not funny. While people make light of it, the ones who are attacked are seldom the ones whose crimes might "deserve" such victimization. In many cases, the predatory monsters who engage in hideous crimes become the rapists, not the victims.
|
|
Should we let people who don't look at the big picture decide what? They certainly have the right to decide what to do with themselves. Stupid people should have freedom too. We may not like the choices they make, but if they don't directly hurt someone else why do we have the right to use force to make them make the choices we think they should make. That is what this all comes down to.
What virtue do the people in charge have that enables them to make better choices for you than you?
This has nothing to do with "better" or "virtue". It's the system that is in place. And what determines "if they don't directly hurt someone else"?
An unborn child isn't a person according to the law. And apparently most people agree with this. Yet if a woman smokes and/or drinks and/or does drugs while pregnant, technically then they are only doing harm to themselves. I mean, they can choose to kill the fetus and this is "right". So let's say that they choose to give birth and the baby has all kinds of birth defects or other complications and needs massive amounts of surgery and so on. Now that the baby is born, it's now a person. Who harmed the person? It wasn't a person before. I feel that someone directly harmed someone else -- yet right now that is more or less legal.
As I said -- things can quickly get "fuzzy".
In a perfect world, sure -- what you propose would probably work. It's not a perfect world. Far from it. This is the system we have. I think that any and every system would have problems with it.
I'm actually more on your side of things that this may appear. But without rules at all (self governance) we end up with anarchy. I don't particularly like that so we need rules. So who makes the rules? I guess whoever we put in power. Who do we put in power? Whoever can better sell their flavor of sh--. Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".
Ok, I'm going to stop now. I'm getting all depressed with the current state of things...
<SNIP> Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".</SNIP>
No Moff, it's because we can't all agree on what's better or virtuous.
|
|
In theory, we have put people in charge who we are trusting to make these decisions for all. At least that's the theory of it.Whoah! Not at all. We put people in charge whose job it is to, as uniformly as possibly, oversee that we do not wilfully deprive one another of life and property, and to render judgment in such cases where this has occurred. We don't hire them to make our decisions for us, nor to protect us from all possible harm ("I, Robot" style) -- certainly not in theory, and I'd like to see it work out less in practice, as well.
I agree with you -- however that's not how it is currently working. (Social Security, Health Care Reform, etc.) Also "render judgement..." sounds a bit reactive rather than proactive. Not sure where the balance would be. I know where I would like it to be, but I'm not sure if everyone else can be where I am.
|
Prisons – Isolated cells
Speeding – OK
Gambling – OK
Drugs – OK
Indecent exposure – OK
Prostitution – OK
Suicide – OK
Sex – OK
Porn – OK
Fraud – OK
Driving without seat belt – OK
Riding without helmet – OK
Sodomy – OK
Abortion – OK
Jaywalking – OK
Paying for others’ addictions – No
Government health care – No
Social Security - No
Partially. I feel it's because many (far too many) people I've seen base "better" or "virtue" on "me".<SNIP> Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".</SNIP>No Moff, it's because we can't all agree on what's better or virtuous.
Well, there's that, too. :(
But aren't the schemes I just mentioned(and a goodly deal of fraud cases, imhoO) simply someone being really, really bad(or in the case of insider trading, really, really good) with money(LOL at the possibility of social security being a pyramid scheme)? The nanny state decried previously?I believe prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of government.Penny, nickel and dime schemes are fraud/con jobs that, while low yield, are notoriously easy to repeat. Perhaps the best example of a potentially lucrative nickel-and-dime would be a pyramid scheme. A penny ante con job might be the pigeon drop.To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.I'd need you to define that latter phrase first... I'm not familiar with the particulars implied.Seconded.
And Bugley gets a soda point.
I consider there to be a difference between being bad with money - which is things like spending more money than you earn, taking debts you can't pay back, things like that - and being swindled by someone taking advantage of your lack of understanding/experience/coffee.
That said, I can accept that there is some overlap where the waters are somewhat murkier.
starts playing banjo music
Partially. I feel it's because many (far too many) people I've seen base "better" or "virtue" on "me".<SNIP> Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".</SNIP>No Moff, it's because we can't all agree on what's better or virtuous.Well, there's that, too. :(
Doesn't that simply stand to reason? Presumably we have whatever views we have because we think they are correct. Of course I want to vote for someone with views similar to my own. I don't think that's a bad thing.
Prisons – Isolated cells
Speeding – OK
Gambling – OK
Drugs – OK
Indecent exposure – OK
Prostitution – OK
Suicide – OK
Sex – OK
Porn – OK
Fraud – OK
Driving without seat belt – OK
Riding without helmet – OK
Sodomy – OK
Abortion – OK
Jaywalking – OK
Paying for others’ addictions – No
Government health care – No
Social Security - No
Why is fraud OK?
I agree with you -- however that's not how it is currently working. (Social Security, Health Care Reform, etc.) Also "render judgement..." sounds a bit reactive rather than proactive. Not sure where the balance would be. I know where I would like it to be, but I'm not sure if everyone else can be where I am.In theory, we have put people in charge who we are trusting to make these decisions for all. At least that's the theory of it.Whoah! Not at all. We put people in charge whose job it is to, as uniformly as possibly, oversee that we do not wilfully deprive one another of life and property, and to render judgment in such cases where this has occurred. We don't hire them to make our decisions for us, nor to protect us from all possible harm ("I, Robot" style) -- certainly not in theory, and I'd like to see it work out less in practice, as well.
Law enforcement is a reactive activity. It's tough to enforce a law before it's broken.
I presume we all understand that law enforcement does not and can not really protect.
Doesn't that simply stand to reason? Presumably we have whatever views we have because we think they are correct. Of course I want to vote for someone with views similar to my own. I don't think that's a bad thing.Partially. I feel it's because many (far too many) people I've seen base "better" or "virtue" on "me".<SNIP> Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".</SNIP>No Moff, it's because we can't all agree on what's better or virtuous.Well, there's that, too. :(
That's not how I took that, BT. Rather I *think* Moff meant "what's best for ME personally," rather than "one who thinks like me." But I may be wrong.
Moff?
Buyer beware.
To a certain extent. But surely society has an interest in seeing contracts enforced?
Doesn't that simply stand to reason? Presumably we have whatever views we have because we think they are correct. Of course I want to vote for someone with views similar to my own. I don't think that's a bad thing.Partially. I feel it's because many (far too many) people I've seen base "better" or "virtue" on "me".<SNIP> Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".</SNIP>No Moff, it's because we can't all agree on what's better or virtuous.Well, there's that, too. :(
That's not how I took that, BT. Rather I *think* Moff meant "what's best for ME personally," rather than "one who thinks like me." But I may be wrong.
Moff?
Self interest not necessarily reflecting larger views and values; I didn't think to read it that way, but that makes sense too.
|
|
To a certain extent. But surely society has an interest in seeing contracts enforced?
There's certainly pros to that. But my personal preference is a society that doesn't expect any positives from each other (even if we think we deserve one from Party X because we just gave Party X a positive). The only expectation I feel we should have from each other is to not give each other negatives (e.g. murder, theft). (I don't think Party X stole anything as the other party voluntarily gave it to him.)
There's certainly pros to that. But my personal preference is a society that doesn't expect any positives from each other (even if we think we deserve one from Party X because we just gave Party X a positive). The only expectation I feel we should have from each other is to not give each other negatives (e.g. murder, theft). (I don't think Party X stole anything as the other party voluntarily gave it to him.)
To a certain extent. But surely society has an interest in seeing contracts enforced?
1 a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick
I think that when a voluntary transaction is the result of a lie the state has a legitimate role in protecting the rights of the person who lost something based on that lie.
For example I can't use freedom of expression as an excuse to write a bad check or falsify a loan application. I have the right not to apply for the loan or do business with whomever I'm writing the check to, but I certainly don't have the right to use deception to gain something from them. My right to say or do what I want ends at the point where I'm violation their rights. Does that make sense?
|
There's certainly pros to that. But my personal preference is a society that doesn't expect any positives from each other (even if we think we deserve one from Party X because we just gave Party X a positive). The only expectation I feel we should have from each other is to not give each other negatives (e.g. murder, theft). (I don't think Party X stole anything as the other party voluntarily gave it to him.)
To a certain extent. But surely society has an interest in seeing contracts enforced?
So if I go into a store and get a couple of items, and shortchange the person who works for the store walking out with 20 bucks change when I should only have gotten 5, then I'm perfectly ok.
And if that teller gets fired for having a shorted register at the end of business day, oh well?
|
|
Self interest not necessarily reflecting larger views and values; I didn't think to read it that way, but that makes sense too.Doesn't that simply stand to reason? Presumably we have whatever views we have because we think they are correct. Of course I want to vote for someone with views similar to my own. I don't think that's a bad thing.Partially. I feel it's because many (far too many) people I've seen base "better" or "virtue" on "me".<SNIP> Because apparently the masses don't want "better" or "virtue".</SNIP>No Moff, it's because we can't all agree on what's better or virtuous.Well, there's that, too. :(
That's not how I took that, BT. Rather I *think* Moff meant "what's best for ME personally," rather than "one who thinks like me." But I may be wrong.
Moff?
Yeah, that's what I meant. Thanks Bugley.
|
|
There's certainly pros to that. But my personal preference is a society that doesn't expect any positives from each other (even if we think we deserve one from Party X because we just gave Party X a positive). The only expectation I feel we should have from each other is to not give each other negatives (e.g. murder, theft). (I don't think Party X stole anything as the other party voluntarily gave it to him.)
To a certain extent. But surely society has an interest in seeing contracts enforced?
No offense to you personally, but "buyer beware" is the stupidest of epithets in an internet age. Since it kills/petty much says, don't buy anything online ever as there's absolutely no recourse. I'm sorry fraud is something that should be protected against.
|
|
No offense to you personally, but "buyer beware" is the stupidest of epithets in an internet age. Since it kills/petty much says, don't buy anything online ever as there's absolutely no recourse. I'm sorry fraud is something that should be protected against.
I think the recourse is not to do business with that individual or business again. There could be something akin to a credit score for each individual and business that could rate each entity's trustworthiness based on their history. If a person or business has a low score, don't conduct business with them.
No offense to you personally, but "buyer beware" is the stupidest of epithets in an internet age. Since it kills/petty much says, don't buy anything online ever as there's absolutely no recourse. I'm sorry fraud is something that should be protected against.I think the recourse is not to do business with that individual or business again. There could be something akin to a credit score for each individual and business that could rate each entity's trustworthiness based on their history. If a person or business has a low score, don't conduct business with them.Two words: Bernie. Madoff. Glowing reviews, outstanding "credit score" (to use your criteria); end result: the single largest Ponzi scheme in history.
And falling into your criteria would be such companies as WorldCom, Enron, Tyco, etc...
These people involved knowingly misled others into believing that their companies were the best things since sliced bread in order to get those glowing reviews and outstanding credit scores.
Fraud is not okay.
Bring some weed over the border and sell it, and you're sent to the Machine.
Bring thousands of people into debt and poverty, and you're given a slap on the wrist.
|
Madoff basically got life. The Enron sentences ranged from five to twenty years. (Ben Glisan, the Enron Treasurer, was my cellie for about a year, he got a five year sentence, reduced from ten, for turning on his co-defendants). IIRC, the Tyco and World Com dudes received some stiff sentences as well.
Now, if you get caught smuggling less than 500 pounds of weed, you'll get less than five years. 500 to 2k pounds will get you five years, over 2k is ten years, fed. Assuming a first offense.
So, Professor, um, no.
Edit: Since I doubt you'd last seven seconds in any real prison,I'd be careful about making statements about what a "slap on the wrist" entails.
Madoff basically got life. The Enron sentences ranged from five to twenty years. (Ben Glisan, the Enron Treasurer, was my cellie for about a year, he got a five year sentence, reduced from ten, for turning on his co-defendants). IIRC, the Tyco and World Com dudes received some stiff sentences as well.
Now, if you get caught smuggling less than 500 pounds of weed, you'll get less than five years. 500 to 2k pounds will get you five years, over 2k is ten years, fed. Assuming a first offense.
So, Professor, um, no.
Five to twenty years is a bit of stretch that incorporates a wide number of years in fed though, and it does not include time for good behavior. I'm not sure many of the Enron folks will serve their full sentence, although I could be wrong(and if you know more on it than I do, please correct me).
Also, what's federal prison like? How does it compare to other prisons(county, city, state, etc)?
|
|
Madoff basically got life. The Enron sentences ranged from five to twenty years. (Ben Glisan, the Enron Treasurer, was my cellie for about a year, he got a five year sentence, reduced from ten, for turning on his co-defendants). IIRC, the Tyco and World Com dudes received some stiff sentences as well.
Now, if you get caught smuggling less than 500 pounds of weed, you'll get less than five years. 500 to 2k pounds will get you five years, over 2k is ten years, fed. Assuming a first offense.
So, Professor, um, no.
Five to twenty years is a bit of stretch that incorporates a wide number of years in fed though, and it does not include time for good behavior. I'm not sure many of the Enron folks will serve their full sentence, although I could be wrong(and if you know more on it than I do, please correct me).
Also, what's federal prison like? How does it compare to other prisons(county, city, state, etc)?
You basically do 85% of your sentence in the Feds, with the 15% being good behavior reductions. So, just over four on a five, eight and ten months on a ten, etc (the Feds do a funny prorated math so you really don't get the full 54 days per year of your sentence). You can get another year knocked off if you qualify for the drug abuse treatment program (RDAP). The only way out of that is to win an appeal, die or get pardoned/commuted.
The quality of life in Federal prison really depends on what security level you are. Camps, like what Michael Vick and Martha Stewart went to, are a cake walk, lots of freedom and stuff. Low security (where I was) is a bit rougher, but still a 1000 times better than any state joint. Medium/High is quite a bit rougher, but only in certain self inflicted situations, like gambling or drug debt or ratting. The U.S. Penitentiaries are basically "gladiator school", and all of the stuff you see in the movies pretty much happens there. That's where the worst of the worst go.
But, with the exception of the camps, if you're a rat, child pornographer or a pedophile, and the gen pop finds out, you're screwed pretty much at any security level. The worst beating I saw in the joint was a dude in a gang that turned out to be a rat. The guards (who are all pussies, btw) sat there and watched the dude get boot stomped for about ten minutes before taking the assailants to the SHU.
I've also seen the guards turn up their radios in the office so they could claim they didn't hear a kiddie porn offender getting the crap beat out of them. Of course, if someone was outted as a rat or a pedo, it was usually a guard who divulged the info.
Oh, well. Don't want to get your ass kicked or killed, don't be a rat or get off on kids. No sympathy here.
Madoff basically got life. The Enron sentences ranged from five to twenty years. (Ben Glisan, the Enron Treasurer, was my cellie for about a year, he got a five year sentence, reduced from ten, for turning on his co-defendants). IIRC, the Tyco and World Com dudes received some stiff sentences as well.
Now, if you get caught smuggling less than 500 pounds of weed, you'll get less than five years. 500 to 2k pounds will get you five years, over 2k is ten years, fed. Assuming a first offense.
So, Professor, um, no.
Five to twenty years is a bit of stretch that incorporates a wide number of years in fed though, and it does not include time for good behavior. I'm not sure many of the Enron folks will serve their full sentence, although I could be wrong(and if you know more on it than I do, please correct me).
Also, what's federal prison like? How does it compare to other prisons(county, city, state, etc)?
You basically do 85% of your sentence in the Feds, with the 15% being good behavior reductions. So, just over four on a five, eight and ten months on a ten, etc (the Feds do a funny prorated math so you really don't get the full 54 days per year of your sentence). You can get another year knocked off if you qualify for the drug abuse treatment program (RDAP). The only way out of that is to win an appeal, die or get pardoned/commuted.
The quality of life in Federal prison really depends on what security level you are. Camps, like what Michael Vick and Martha Stewart went to, are a cake walk, lots of freedom and stuff. Low security (where I was) is a bit rougher, but still a 1000 times better than any state joint. Medium/High is quite a bit rougher, but only in certain self inflicted situations, like gambling or drug debt or ratting. The U.S. Penitentiaries are basically "gladiator school", and all of the stuff you see in the movies pretty much happens there. That's where the worst of the worst go.
But, with the exception of the...
Thank you very much for the info- I can make more informed opinions of prison sentences now. That said- do you think the Enron guys(or someone affiliated with them) who was a whistleblower and got time would get the same type of rat-beatdown as seen on tv in rougher prisons?
|
|
That said- do you think the Enron guys(or someone affiliated with them) who was a whistleblower and got time would get the same type of rat-beatdown as seen on tv in rougher prisons?
Well, Ben wasn't a "whistle blower". He was a rat. Big difference. Whistle blowers generally blow the whistle before the authorities are hip to what's up. Ben was just a rat. But, since he was a semi-famous, well off rat who knew the markets, and Federal inmates tend to be hustlers, a lot of guys were on his jock big time, trying to get info on how to play the market and how different financial investment situations work. It was hilarious, and I used to call guys out on it all the time. They'd just say "Yeah, but he's a useful rat."
Prison is weird sometimes.
|
|
Personally, I think people like Madoff and others who increase their own wealth by fraud should get a much tougher sentence than any prison. They should have all of their assets seized, given a basic, lower middle class job, and have to live like one of the regular people they ripped off for at least 5 years. Complete with monitoring to ensure that no friends are helping them live better than the rest of us. I doubt anyone could come up with something worse (in the eyes of the guilty, anyways) than forcing them to live like regular people.
You've never been to prison, have you?
Seriously, I was living the life before I was busted, total rock star existence. Lived well above the means of even half the CPAs and attorneys I know. Yeah, it wasn't $20 million mansion in the Hamptons rich, but I could do what I wanted, when I wanted, no sweat.
I live on shit wages now. Less than what a "regular" person makes. I wouldn't trade this (and trust me, my life has sucked major ass lately) to go back to prison at all.
Madoff is in Butner Medical Facility in North Carolina. Which means he's probably dying. The place sucks from what I've heard. He's in a much worse place than if he were flipping burgers at the local McDonalds.