Prison sentences can't prevent the next Madoff, in the same way that they didn't prevent Madoff.

Perhaps if we tried prosecuting most of the people who commit large-scale financial abuse, instead of throwing the book at one guy and letting the rest off with a wink and a nod.

But it probably prevented hundred of Madoff wannabes...

I'm going to have to insist on a citation for that claim.

It's a mathematical reality, in the context of opportunity. Pretending it's some assertion of future-proofed knowledge is silly.

"Probably"? If we're going to deny people the most fundamental human rights, we need a bit more rational reasoning than "probably".

If prison sentences are merely a deterrent to other criminals, then sure, we need some evidence to back up the idea that deterrence works. (I would think it's pretty self-evident that there are a ton of minor/medium crimes that would increase in prevalence if there were no consequences, though.)

But it's not. Prison is also a punishment for the person who committed the crime, and, if our prison system wasn't so messed up, could be a place for reform.

The most fundamental human rights are to be able to live without suffering what the guys that are in these prisons do to the society. Living without fear of violence, rape, murder, being burglarized, conned, etc. These are human rights.

Merely keeping someone in a cell is a rather gentle treatment compared to how other cultures or other times treat/treated criminals.

Now we can discuss sentence lengths, prison sentencing for certain non violent crimes, etc. But I am sure I am not alone to have no sympathy for the idea that putting criminals in jail is violating their human rights.

Living without fear of being conned is a human right??

I can buy that living without fear of murder or rape or even theft is a human right (we have a right to life, liberty, and property). I can even buy that locking con men away is desirable from the point of view of improving society as a whole. But raising that to the level of a human right seems much.

Yes, as I said in my comment, property is commonly recognized as a human right.

Nothing in that Wikipedia article says anything about being conned or deceived out of your property, and my question is whether a right to not be conned can be derived from that right. Do I have a fundamental human right to hold onto my property even if I am making a decision to give it up that other people think is unsound? Does that right prevent me from giving up my property? (There are, in general, rights that prevent you from doing things - for instance, I'd say that the right to liberty prevents you from consenting indefinitely to authoritarian government. Is this one of them?) Or do I have a fundamental human right to do with my property as I wish, and a right to not have my decisions second-guessed by the government?

For example, several jurisdictions believe that I cannot give up all copyright claims to some software I write, and that whatever I do, I maintain a "moral right" or "author's right" to the software, and even if I want to promise someone that they can literally do whatever with the software, the laws prevent me from doing that. I think this is a violation of my liberty, but clearly the people writing the laws think that I am being conned.