Madoff’s Sons, The Unabomber’s Brother: ‘Family Ties Benefits’ vs. ‘Family Ties Burdens’

Today’s topic: How should lawmakers protect and obligate individuals with familial ties to criminals? In short, how should courts approach, for example, Bernie Madoff’s sons?

From Concurring Opinions:

“…we sought to survey the various spaces within the criminal justice system in which defendants are either benefited or burdened by virtue of their family status, ties, and/or responsibilities. To give you a sense of the panoply of benefits and burdens, consider just a few: most states give spouses a right to refuse to testify against their spouse in a criminal proceeding and some even permit a spouse to block the testimony of a spouse who is willing to testify; almost twenty states give exemptions or substantial punishment discounts to those harboring a fugitive when that fugitive was a close family member; many states permit or require sentencing discounts to offenders who are parents with care-giving obligations; most states impose duties to rescue, supervise and support children and the breach of those duties renders one eligible for criminal sanction; most states have bigamy and incest laws that render conduct “criminal” that would not otherwise be unlawful but for the family status of the defendant.

…We also wondered how policymakers and courts should view these laws. And so we established a framework of analysis for these benefits and burdens, one that was inspired by, but not identical to, the framework used to scrutinize suspect classifications in constitutional law. To sum up our various conclusions crudely, we basically claim that the state should exercise substantial caution and indeed skepticism to most attempts to distribute these benefits or burdens based on one’s family status.”

Thanks, Kash.

Related Reading:

* A brother lost, a brotherhood found

* The Unabomber’s Brother Tells His Story

* Madoff’s Sons: Unemployed, Broke And Just Hoping To Stay Out Of Jail

* ‘While most states have comprehensive anti-discrimination laws, nepotism may not be covered as a form of discrimination.’