Made Off

I was thinking, a bit, about Bernie Madoff. Specifically, what punishment he ought to get.

His lawyers point out that this is not the French Revolution, with the howling mob outside the gates chanting for blood, and likely to get it. They are confident that he will be judged fairly, on the merits of the case, no emotional appeals from now-destitute widows and orphans. Others say that as a result of the tumult that he has brought, no punishment is too extreme for him ; some want him executed, others want him confined to a dank cell with a constantly playing television showing the people he has ruined.

I'm not much of a philosopher -- I always thought that the Allegory of the Cave was that you shouldn't go in there because that's where bears hang out -- but it seems to me that this sort of crime suggests a different order of punishment entirely. It would be one thing if those who lost money could be made whole, substantially or entirely; if that were so, recompense plus fines would do it. Incarceration, too, but only because otherwise it'd seem as if we were saying that so long as you have enough funds to pay people back, you can do as you like. (In fact, where did the money go? Reminds me of the comment I heard years ago about an embezzler who, asked the same question, said "Women. Horses. The women were fast, the horses weren't.")

But that's not the case here. He doesn't have nearly enough to do that, or even make a substantial stab at it. So: what punishment? What are we looking for? Recompense, sure. Retribution. Can't do the time, don't do the crime. Vengeance? He's finished, and vengeance visited on him -- a curse on your house! -- won't stop others of equal malicious intent, though it might serve as a warning sign to potential victims. What else?

I think of the tradition in the old British navy (my source for this is the Aubrey/Maturin novels) of 'flogging round the fleet'. From the Nelson's Navy site: "The severest form of flogging was a flogging round the fleet. The number of lashes was divided by the number of ships in port and the offender was rowed between ships for each ships company to witness the punishment." I'm not suggesting that he be flogged -- purely from a physical standpoint, that wouldn't last very long, and in a post-Gitmo atmosphere (well, okay, we're almost there), it'd be right up there with waterboarding. From an emotional standpoint, some would be satisfied; others would still want to see him lashed to four horses aimed at the cardinal points, and then spurred.

It would be almost enough (I know I'd feel differently if I'd lost money with him) if our society practiced shunning, as a rule. Wherever he went, none would speak to him save for minimal requirements; we would show our revulsion and contempt for someone who did what he did (and, I'd hope, by extension anyone of similar style but lesser scope). Even then, I find myself thinking well, okay, but he can't be living comfortably; a life of daytime TV -- no cable! -- and bean soup, for him. In a hovel. A drafty, ragged hovel.

Perhaps, for some crimes, there is no effective punishment.