So Judge Denny Chin sentenced Bernie Madoff to 150 years.  That’s along the lines of one and half lifetimes, assuming you start at birth.  It was three times the recommendation of the Probation Department, which suggested a mere 50 years, still rather steep for any 71 year old short of Methuselah. 

Obviously, the interests that took precedence were general deterrence and retribution.  It makes sense, in a strange sort of way, that the judge would sentence the defendant to 150 years rather than 50, since both will result in Madoff’s death in prison, but the longer sentence packs a far greater punch as far as the media, and deterrence, are concerned.  Plus, it has the added benefit of satisfying the understandable lust for retribution for the victims.

Yet, there are some deeper institutional issues at stake that flew over the heads of most of TV commentators.  Will this really serve as a deterrence, going as far over the top as it did?  What impact will this have on future guilty pleas?  Who wants Ike Sorkin to be their lawyer?

Judge Chin said that Madoff’s crimes were “extraordinarily evil.”  That may be true, but it doesn’t do much to quantify a sentence.  We hear judges say things like that with some frequency, but it’s an ever-moving bar so that it doesn’t do much to explain whether a fraudster will be just fine if he only steals, say, $50 million from 10 people or $1 billion from 5 people. 

Judge Chin also noted that not a single letter was submitted in support of Madoff.  What were the chances that anyone in this country wanted to be named as a friend of Bernie?  Come on.  That’s just silly, not to mention a decision by Sorkin to avoid pursuing that line at sentence.  I’m sure the judge knew that, but he was using what he had available.

Throughout the course of the Madoff defense, I’ve questioned what the heck the defense was thinking.  Like most people, I would have guessed that Ike Sorkin had something up his sleeve that he would pull out at the moment it was needed.  As it turns out, Sorkin came up empty.  Totally, completely, utterly empty.  His client copped to everything, got the max and will be remembered as one of nation’s worst scoundrels. 

To the extent that there is any lesson to be learned from the Madoff case, it’s all negative.  If someone’s about to rat you out for scamming a few billion, you might as well murder them since they can’t give you life plus cancer.  And if you get caught, you might as well fight with everything you’ve got, as hard as you can, no matter what, as you won’t get the slightest consideration for doing the right thing.  And while the going is good, hide as much cash as you can where the government won’t find it so you can afford a lawyer with a better strategy than Sorkin.

What are they gonna do?  Give you life plus cancer?

I wonder if Judge Chin thought about that when he came up with 150 years.

Update:  I’ve read a number of posts reflecting the thoughts of lawprofs on the significance and virtue of the Madoff sentence.  Without naming names, or linking links, I need to add one bit to this post:  I have yet to see one lawprof post that demonstrates any depth of comprehension of how things work in real-life courtrooms.  One couldn’t fathom why Chin didn’t go along with the probation department’s recommendation, “because they’re the professionals.”  I swear to God, that’s what she wrote.  Another sees the sentence as a ceiling problem (as if all other defendants can somehow age themselves out of their sentence) while others don’t think it’s going to have any impact on how future white collar defendants will perceive the system.  You gotta be kidding.  Who will take a plea after this?

People, get out of the classrooms and books and stick your heads into a courtroom once in a while.  Not just when it’s a high profile case, but a real case with real people and no TV cameras.  There’s a whole wide world of law happening out there, and it’s passing you by.