This BBC article gives a good summary of the case, but to be even more brief: a small group of people lost money which they had invested, blamed their financial adviser, were unable to get it through the courts, so they kidnapped him and tried to force him to pay back the money which he had lost. They broke two of his ribs beating him up and had stuffed him in a crate on the way to the home in which they detained him. To me, this is a pretty severe crime.

Their best argument is that he stole it, but we have a legal system to deal with such situations; when people are unsatisfied with the result, they have no right to take justice in their own hands. They gambled their money, lost it and used violence to try and get it back.

The sentence?



I am worried that the courts might have made the sentences shorter because of the age of the criminals and how "unfair" it might seem that they lost this money (they shouldn't have gambled what they were not ready to lose). I also have to wonder why the women received "suspended sentences". I have not clue how German law deals with kidnaps, but it's a very serious crime and for people who were involved in it to get "suspended sentences" (they won't go to jail unless they break the law again) and for the mastermind -- who used violence for his ends -- to get six years... it seems wrong.

Of course, it could be argued that prisons are meant to protect society from others and it would be a waste of resources to incarcerate such people. I certainly am not worried that they will commit such a crime again. So should these people go to jail at all? This is one important question. However, whether or not they do go to jail, I think that part of the punishment -- for everyone who was knowingly involved in this -- should include having all their money and assets be taken away from them. They can live off the state pension that Germany offers and which many people who have not committed such gross acts currently live on. This is less expensive than jail and I don't think that people who were ready to kidnap others for financial gain should be allowed to maintain whatever monetary resources they have; they have forfeited their rights to any of society's fruits. If they want their luxuries back, they can go back to work (when they get out of jail).

I don't see how this crime is much different from any other violent crime, except for the fact that it was intelligently planned and that instead of being a random attack, the perpertrators had a very understandable motive.
Does it seem shocking because a financial advisor is normally considererd cushioned from the rough and tumble of daily life? The fiancial crisis may have been avoided if more disgruntled customers took this hands on approach. It would be frustrating to see one's life time savings poured down the drain by an iept advisor. I see Madoff has been beaten up by a fellow jailbird for unsatisfactory advice he gave one of them recently.
We have had some far worse crimes here recently, an elderly couple were beaten black and blue where they had fallen asleep watching TV in their armchairs. The mongrels that did it have been charged but we'll have to wait and see what their punishment is, but I predict it will fall far short of what they deserve.

Madoff is a convicted criminal. He ran a government-style Ponzi scheme and that's illegal in the U.S. and most other countries. In this case, there is no suggestion that the financial advisor did anything criminal. They took their chances and lost. I suspect they also made some very stupid decisions before the kidnapping.

Prison isn't simply to keep dangerous people away from everyone. A lot of people go to prison simply as punishment. That has some value.

I know only one person who "lost his life's savings." He invested over $900k in one company. Everyone he confided in advised him to not do it. He did. It went under but, face it, he was incredibly stupid.

If he who breaks the law is not punished, he who obeys it is cheated. This, and this alone, is why lawbreakers ought to be punished: to authenticate as good, and to encourage as useful, law-abiding behavior. The aim of criminal law cannot be correction or deterrence; it can only be the maintenance of the legal order.
Thomas Szasz (b. 1920), U.S. psychiatrist. “Punishment,” The Second Sin, 1973

Which BBC article??

Patrickt , stupidity does not equate with criminality. I am assuming the guy who lost the $900k was not acting illegally , unwisely yes but many who lost their investments were naive and trusting that banks and companies were acting ethically and within the law.
Those who take the law into their own hands become criminals in turn and deserve the consequences.

catey: Patrickt , "stupidity does not equate with criminality. I am assuming the guy who lost the $900k was not acting illegally , unwisely yes but many who lost their investments were naive and trusting that banks and companies were acting ethically and within the law."

Of course, stupidity does not equate with criminality regardless of who is being stupid. My comment was in response to the attempt to garner sympathy for these criminals with the plea about people who lost everything, were wiped out, and so forth. It takes some real effort to lose "everything". A modest amount of diversification and a little care about how the money is being invested does not protect you from a downturn but it does protect you from being "wiped out".

From the information presented, the financial manager didn't do anything illegal. The kidnappers simply wanted their money back and were willing to kidnap and beat the man in an attempt to recover their money.