The suicides related to the Madoff Scan probably have less to do with money than with trust. Like any pyramid game, many of Madoff’s victims convinced others to donate their money. If you have not only lost your own fortune, but inadvertently fooled your family and friends into doing likewise, life will be extremely difficult and shameful. If your friend’s family loses its house and their oldest daughter forced to quit college, it is dubious whether such damage could be reversed even in theory.

If this doesn’t convince Prisoner #771782 of the lethality of Madoff’s action (it’s still free will), then there is harder evidence. Undoubtedly some of the ruined people will die before their time as they cannot afford the same health care anymore. A scam of enough money equals deaths, it is pure statistics.

There is a concept in Sociology called deviation. The concept describes how persons who engage in unacceptable behavior would often find themselves on the rejected by society. A number of inconsistencies in the activities of our justice system become understandable when you view it as a mechanism of deviation.

Our inane “War on Drugs” is an example. It is foolish to believe that we are making even the slightest dent on drug abuse, yet people are unwilling to consider any other approach. Why? The simplest explanation is that they are far more interested in stamping drug users with a scarlet letter than they are in actually solving a problem.

Good sense would require that we do all in our power to see ex-cons gainfully employed, yet we actually make that a very difficult option.I contend that the system exists solely to deviate undesirables and that the system is intended to function as a one-way door.

Take for instance the serial rapist that has an uncontrollable desire to rape and kill women. It’s obvious he’s a sociopath and I’d be willing to bet money there’s a physiological problem that does hinder his free will. Science certainly can help piece this together. Does he have a chemical imbalance. Are there under or overdeveloped sections of his brain? Does any findings match up with other sociopaths? Sure, it’s not has hard and observable as physics – but delving into the complexity of the human mind will only serve to better understand ourselves, and better understand various fields of science.

For the record, I believe that rapist should either a) be forced to be a guinea pig to whom ever wants to study him (so long as it’s not cruel and unusual – no nazi experiments here) or b) put to death. We don’t have a cure, he obviously can’t control himself, and he’s very dangerous.

A better question would be how did so many arrive at jail. Orange County, CA Probation Dept. found that half of their clients were one time foster kids. Becoming a foster kid is one of the consequences of a fatherless society. Currently half of the kids before they are 18 find themselves with severely reduced contact with their fathers because of the primitive actions of divorce court. Numerous studies show either the direct effect on crime or indirect through reduced school performance. An overwhelming majority of prisoners are fatherless.

The huge “Corrections” expense could be more than unintended consequences. State law says that monetary child support is a stream of revenue and should be maximized. The state accepts $1B Federal funds to support collections. There is no monetary child support without the divorce court dividing up kids’ care unequally. Our best estimate todate is that the consequence is a $12B state taxpayer expense and $48B lost income to kids. Jailing half as many kids would itself save $2B in “Corrections”.

One route to reducing the number of crazy stories from murders and petty thieves is to correct the missing logic behind some social policy. Too often a policy is deemed a right independent of consequence. Often child support is deemed a mother’s right, but in consequence this could be reframed to be a mother’s right to have children jailed and impoverished.

Applying science and philosophy to a murderer’s plight is too late. Applying science to the wider context makes sense.

You did the same when originally replying to Tom – you did not actually address his points, you huffed out ‘nonsense’ and then provided an anecdote bolstered by some loose definitions of key words.

Have you not been paying attention to the current financial situation and its causes?