He is 70 years old and will receive what will in effect be a life in prison sentence.
A thirty year old man steals 10 million dollars and get's a ten year sentence. He's out when he's 38 or so.
A seventy year old man steals 10 million dollars and gets a ten year sentence. Statistically speaking he is likely to die in prison.
Should age be a factor in sentencing vis a vis the impact the length of the sentence is likely to have on the person's life span? Should the likelihood that an older person is more likely to not live out their prison sentence be a factor in reducing their sentence?
We're not talking about Madoff here. His crimes dwarf what we're talking about. He changed the face of the financial landscape of this country by bankrupting charities that have little ability to recoup their endowments and he stole the life savings of hundreds if not thousands of older individuals, many of whom have no idea and little ability to support themselves in their 70's, 80's or beyond.
Madoff will get what amounts to a life in prison sentence because the number of his victims and the sophistication and scope of his fraud dwarfs any known previous scheme.
So putting aside the emotions associated with Madoff, should age, and specifically the advanced age of an individual be a reason for a departure below the guidelines?
MARKUS STRIKES BACK.
Our favourite federal blogger continues to do his job and make life miserable for federal prosecutors who secretly taped him without permission from the Department of Justice.
Recently we learned that in one of our federal cases we were taped by the government:
Rumpole: "You know you still owe me money."
Client: "Yeah. Nothing I can do about it. What's our defense at trial?"
Rumpole: "I'm not sure."
Client: "Looks like we're going to lose."
Rumpole: "Yeah. Nothing I can do about it."
See you in court, not talking on the phone.