Ethics

Bernard Madoffs scandal has, probably, become one of the brightest examples of white-collar crime in America after the Enron case. Bernard Madoff has proved that Ponzi schemes are still alive and are actively used in frauds but, more importantly, Madoffs fraud has also revealed the legal and ethical inconsistencies in the current system of punishments against white-collar crimes. The fact is in that white-collar crimes are believed to have only indirect impacts on society. They are not associated with physical violence and direct harm, and those who commit frauds usually expect to avoid incarceration, especially before trial. As a result, Madoff has been granted a unique opportunity to remain free on a 10 million bond (Glovin  Larson B5) and to stay in his luxury penthouse apartment before trial. However, that frauds do not cause physical injuries does not change their crime status nor does it decrease the scope of the financial harm caused by Madoff to his investors that it why, it is essential that the court reconsiders its decision and sends Madoff to jail to await trial.

White-collar crimes are defined as a nonviolent offence involving corruption, deceit, or breach of trust. This type of crime generally is committed by individuals. The large range of white-collar crimes includes receiving stolen goods, forgery, obtaining goods or money by false pretenses, embezzlement, use of the mails to defraud, and computer crimes (Bohlman  Dundas 205). The seriousness and the scope of legal sentences for white-collar crimes usually depends on the scope of the crime itself, as well as the scope of harm (mostly, financial) caused by each particular offender. The meaning of harm and victimization in white-collar crimes is still a matter of a serious professional debate. The problem is in that white-collar crime differs greatly from conventional crimes in the form and quality of harm caused to victims (Pontell  Geis 227). Whereas conventional crimes are associated with and involve direct physical harm and identifiable physical injury, white-collar crimes are committed through non-violent means and cause incorporeal harm like the loss of physical assets (Pontell  Geis 227). Moreover, it is difficult and at times impossible to identify the specific physical location and the period of time for each particular white-collar crime (Pontell  Geis 227). Because white-collar crimes are never about violence and do not cause any physical harm to victims, courts and justices tend to release the suspects and let them await trial at home. However, normative ethics justifies incarceration as a reasonable response to white-collar crime.

Through the prism of deontological ethics, white-collar crime can be fairly regarded as equal to, if not more serious than, other forms of crimes, including violent offense. Deontological ethics rules that action is ethical or nonethical depending on the extent, to which it is moral. The fact that Madoff will remain free on a 10 million bond,  denying a request by US prosecutors that he be jailed while awaiting trial on a federal securities fraud charge (Glovin  Larson B5) implies that white-collar crimes are less immoral compared to conventional crimes. As such, those who commit frauds and use Ponzi schemes for easy profits may consider themselves as less criminal compared to those, who engage in street crime. Such attitudes toward white-collar crimes send a message to the public that they can fearlessly engage in frauds and fraud schemes, without being afraid to be sent to jail before trial. In this sense, Madoff should await trial in jail, to make sure that society and the criminal justice system recognize the immorality of white-collar crimes and that society and the criminal justice system recognize incarceration as the necessary element of fighting against financial frauds.

Utilitarianism evaluates the ethical character of actions, based on their consequences. Here, incarceration comes into conflict with white-collar crimes although white-collar crimes cause serious financial harms, there are also significant indirect, diffuse, and aggregative harms caused by such conduct  e.g., loss of investor and consumer confidence, distrust of government, and bad decisions made by public officials  that are much harder to quantify (Pontell  Geis 228). Simultaneously, that the harm caused by white-collar criminals is difficult to quantify does not necessarily give the judges the right to release suspects and criminals to await trial at home or elsewhere the financial losses caused by Ponzi schemes and the number of Madoffs victims can justify any judges decision to send Madoff to jail to await trial. The consequences of white-collar crimes are no less serious than those caused by conventional crimes although a prominent investor and a professional financial advisor, Madoff is no better than serial killers who have sent dozens of their victims into an abyss. Through the prism of utilitarianism, incarceration in the long-term period is likely to produce a serious change in corporate culture people will finally realize that their fraudulent behaviors will inevitably result in limited freedoms, the loss of their reputation, and incarceration, like it would happen with any other offender.

Conclusion
The case of Bernie Madoff has become the most serious white-collar crime after the Enron scandal. The problem is in whether Madoff should be sent to jail to await trial. Both deontological and utilitarian ethical perspectives confirm the need for Madoff to spend the time before trial in jail. On the one hand, his fraudulent behaviors are no less immoral than those of conventional offenders on the other hand, incarceration is likely to send a message to the public that the consequences of white-collar crime, although difficult to quantify, are no less serious than those caused by a physical injury. Incarceration will position white-collar crime as a serious public offense and will warn future criminals about the consequences of their fraudulent intentions.