I wonder how it benefits anyone, except old testament punishment advocates, for the taxpayers to pay for room and board for Mr. Blagojevich for 14 years. What about sentencing him to work at a public shelter, or other public service job, at low wages, and be required to house and feed himself, and not hold public office, for 14 years? The only cost would be periodic monitoring. (He should live in modest circumstances without access to stored assets, which would be frozen from him.) Indeed what about something like this for other non violent offenders? If their physical presence is not a threat, why are they incarcerated? And if they have stolen money, why grant them free room and board? Maybe I am missing something here that has escaped me for over 60 years of observation. I guess a free con man would be able to more easily run a scam. Maybe they could be required to work somewhere their identity was well known, so they would have less ability to dupe people. Perhaps public works, like a road building project, or even a free tutoring service, or answer phones at a public information center. I.e. the monitor could be their boss at such a job. If their presence was generally visible, they should be less of a threat to cheat someone. They could even lecture at universities on their expertise, such as it is. Embarrassment to them should not be a big problem, compared to being locked up. And they could even be rehabilitated this way to some extent, by discovering the value of openness and trust. E.g. Mr. Blagojevich could teach how governments become corrupted and how they might be made more sound. All speaking fees above a certain amount going to their victims. What are the obstacles to this? Is it only the "eye for an eye" people who would object? Indeed even those should not object in this case, if they think about it. I.e.requiring some measure of restitution seems more accurately "eye for an eye" for a thief, than putting him in prison. Ideas?