Forbidden Donut

Why does this anger you?

He stole billions of dollars, leading to a couple of suicides. He then proceeded to use the time between being caught and going to trial to buy a shitload of jewelry to give to his family, and was then caught doing that as well. After all that, it's determined that keeping him under house arrest in his several million dollar penthouse is safe. Because he certainly doesn't have access to the internet, and definitely wouldn't know how to transfer funds all over the world with it.

The better question is what about this isn't completely outrageous?

innocent before proven guilty. our justice system doesnt punish you until you are convicted.

This is about pre-trial holding. If you steal an old lady's purse, you will be held. In jail. With bail. Or not. Regardless you're in the slammer until the trial unless you can afford great lawyers. He stole billions, he has the means to steal more simply by being "free". He's already demonstrated a willingness to continue his fraudulent activity after being caught.

If a guy's a flight risk you don't let him hang out on house arrest. If the guy's liable to physically endanger people you don't let him hang out on house arrest. If the guy's liable to steal completely incomprehensible sums of money at the drop of a hat, it does not suddenly make sense to let him hang out... under house arrest.

This isn't about punishing the man, yet.

The judge even set up restrictions making it an additional criminal charge to move his own property (involved in a civil case atm) around with a computer. Essentially they're saying, "well, he's likely to launder as much of this shit as possible while under house arrest, so we are going to let him, then we're going to tack it onto the charges in the criminal case which can go down in flames at the drop of a hat because this guy can afford the best law team on the planet. And that's OK."

can you explain this more: "Essentially they're saying, "well, he's likely to launder as much of this shit as possible while under house arrest, so we are going to let him, then we're going to tack it onto the charges in the criminal case which can go down in flames at the drop of a hat because this guy can afford the best law team on the planet. And that's OK." "
That could be a very good point if he does have internet access.

If I was him, I would rather be in protective custody. You steal millions from people, one or more of them have a friend of a friend, who knows how to shoot a firearm, long or short, close or far. Whats a few more bucks to get even. Actually this needs to happen, cuz I think this would make the scum like Madoff think twice?

You got it. If he has internet access or phone access. Hell if he can mail a fucking letter he can continue to make money disappear. The judge who OK'd house arrest has to know this, and unless the man is effectively bound and gagged it's not just a possibility, it's damn near a guarantee. So why give him the opportunity? Especially when far smaller crimes get no such consideration.

Bud:
It wouldn't be a particularly sad day if that happened. Not that I wish harm on him as punishment, just that I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. That's all.

gotcha, lock him the hell up =)

What sucks (yet still holds true for him) is that he is still innocent as of right now...



He did not commit a violent crime, so I don't see the reason to hold him in a jail now. Right now they are just trying to make sure he does not run away, if I had to guess.

The return of the money he stole from his clients will be a civil suit, not the one he is a part of now.

That will come afterwards, and at that hearing he will wish he was dead. That is the court case(s) I want to see.

I just hope you're not overestimating our legal system. I also hope it's well covered.