Bernard Madoff, the perpetrator of what has to be the biggest Ponzi-scheme fraud ever, is planning to plead guilty tomorrow to all criminal charges that have brought against him. Well, I’m no legal expert, so I have no idea what should be done to him from a legal standpoint. But I do feel competent to address some moral points that relate to Madoff’s guilty plea.
First, the scope of Madoff’s crime is so vast, with so many victims, extending over such a long time that I am not convinced that Madoff can be morally rehabilitated. Much of morality is a matter of habit, and the longer someone like Madoff indulges in the habit of immorality, the longer it will take to break that habit. Then too, perniciously evil habits like Madoff’s, which are grounded in simple greed (not desperation), and which are made in full knowledge that they are wrong, are habits that will be much harder to break. Because Madoff has become habituated to crime and habituated to enjoying the fruits of his crime, because he has engaged in his crimes for so long now, I doubt he can ever be trusted to live a moral life on his own.
Second, because Madoff can never be trusted to live on his own again, outside of prison, then he will be unable to make restitution to anyone whose money he stole. Madoff’s crime is one where restitution would make a difference in the lives of the victims (at least, in the lives of the majority of his victims who did not commit suicide). But we can’t ever trust him with any money-making scheme ever again — at least, we can’t trust him to earn another 65 billion dollars to pay his victims back.
The most we could hope for is an apology, but the chances of Madoff making any meaningful apology approach zero. Some people will take comfort in believing that Madoff will suffer some kind of torment and torture after death, but even if I believed in such punishment after death, I would not call that a satisfactory resolution to Madoff’s moral violations. Thus, I hold no hope for rehabilitation, restitution, apology, or punishment after death.
Unfortunately, this is one of those moral situations for which there is no satisfactory resolution. Fortunately, my religious faith does not expect nice neat satisfactory resolution of every moral violation. From my religious frame of reference the best moral response to Madoff’s evil actions is — not to dwell on rehabilitation, restitution, apology, or punishment — but to strengthen the social moral systems that help prevent such actions: — speak out against greed; refuse to let anyone believe that we deserve something for nothing; tell your children why Madoff is evil.
He’s facing 150 years in prison. So your saying he shouldn’t go? I have no problem putting him away for life.. no moral qualms at all. The punishment fits.
Interesting question. The Navajo tribe has a good outlook on this. They seek to maintain “houzro” or balance with nature. Therefore, when a person commits a crime, the goal is to bring him back into balance with nature, rather than to just punish him.
To bring Madoff back into houzro, one would need a lot more knowledge than one would get headlines and newscasts, but maybe the answer would be to make a list of his victims, prioritized by the harm he has done, and make him a slave of each victim for a period of time.
….and make him a slave of each victim for a period of time.
So on top of getting fleeced by the guy, the victims have to pick up his room and board?
FPC Duluth (which needs a Chaplain by the way) is the place Madoff probably out to be.
Can’t do the time, don’t do the crime is what offenders told me when I volunteered in the Cook County Jail.
There is a certain honor in being a stand up guy and doing your time.
Bill @ 1 — If you read my post again, you’ll see I said: “Madoff can never be trusted to live on his own again, outside of prison.” Not only do I have no moral qualms about putting him in prison for life, I think that’s the only possibility open to us — if we ever let him out, he’s just going to try to swindle someone again. My point is that locking him up doesn’t do his victims any good; the damage he did can never be adequately addressed.
Ted @ 2 — I’m not sure I believe that idea of bringing someone back into balance with nature, because I’m not willing to assume that nature is morally balance — indeed, I’d argue that nature is essentially amoral. Slavery, on the other hand, seems pretty clearly immoral, so I couldn’t go along with your suggestion. Not that I have a better suggestion. I just don’t think this situation has any possibility of a morally satisfactory outcome.
>tell your children why Madoff is evil.
I’m a little surprised by this statement. How is it in accord with your Universalism? Yes, you did refer to his evil actions. But is Madoff himself evil, the embodiment of evil, or the perpetrator of evil actions, or is there a difference? … just interested in how the theology of Universalism comes to bear.
Paul @ 5 — Thanks for the good questions. Basic answer: One way to change the whole system for the better is to educate children as to what is evil. So that’s what we Universalists do — tell children why Madoff is evil. Thus we can tell Universalist children something like this: Yes, as a human being Madoff has inherent worth; but his actions have been so evil that we can no longer trust him; evil has become a habit with him, a habit we doubt he can break on his own.
You also ask: “…is Madoff himself evil…”
From a Universalist point of view, no human being can be entirely evil, but they can certainly engage in evil actions. Furthermore, every human is redeemable, but they may only be fully redeemable by some trans-human power (e.g., God; for religious naturalists, a trans-human power may be more problematic, although as a thought experiment we could probably think of carefully constructed moral systems as a trans-human power).
and you ask: “…[is Madoff] the embodiment of evil…”
From my pragmatist point of view, there is no such thing as an embodiment of some Platonic form of evil, so for me this is a null question (i.e., the set of answers to this question is a null, or empty, set).
and you ask: “…[is Madoff] the perpetrator of evil actions…”
I had thought it would be obvious that’s what I’m saying, and I’m sorry if it was not. However, I’m not entirely comfortable with the word “perpetrator,” with its connotations of police reports. Why not “person who has engaged in evil actions for so long it has become his life’s habit”? — although I admit this is me putting my pragmatist spin on Universalist theology.
and you ask: “…or is there a difference?”
Yes, there is a difference, as outlined above. Hope all is clear now; if not, let me know with another comment.
True. What is evil? Is it the man on the bus in Canada who decapitated the man next to him, but was found not guilty due to his schizophrenia?
Is it the guy who raped and killed his 6-year-old cousin when she caught him trying to steal money from his grandmother?
And Madoff, who, although he shed no blood, knowingly took the money (which he can assume to be savings, retirement funds, college funding, medical costs, livelihood, etc.) and shuffled it for his own financial reward, knowing that even in the best scenario, people would lose substantial sums? Like the term “right,” as in “human right,” “evil” is a social construct, perhaps meaning to harm profoundly with no regrets.