Jail time between conviction and sentencing

[Little_Nemo]

But you are not entitled not to be in jail. Lots of people who are in jail haven’t been sentenced, or even tried.

I’m not in jail. I assume you’re not either. It’s a pretty good bet that nobody in this thread’s in jail.

Most people aren’t in jail. It’s not a default state. You’re only in jail if the government can establish it has a good reason to put you in jail. Otherwise you are most certainly entitled not to be in jail.

[Gfactor]

@Little_Nemo

You’re only in jail if the government can establish it has a good reason to put you in jail.

Reason Madoff is in jail:

US District Judge Denny Chin in New York revoked Madoff’s $10 million bail on Thursday, after Madoff, 70, pleaded guilty to 11 charges of fraud. Chin ruled Madoff was a flight risk because of his age and enormous wealth.

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2009/03/14/madoff_seeks_to_have_bail_restored/

And see, http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/thursday/longisland/ny-bzappl1912560429mar19,0,665200.story

[Keeve]

@Little_Nemo

I’m not in jail. I assume you’re not either. It’s a pretty good bet that nobody in this thread’s in jail.

Most people aren’t in jail. It’s not a default state. You’re only in jail if the government can establish it has a good reason to put you in jail. Otherwise you are most certainly entitled not to be in jail.

Yes, but we haven’t been convicted.

It seems odd to me that a conviction isn’t a better reason to be in jail than an arrest is. The idea that a “self-surrender” should allow a convicted criminal to have time to “put his affairs in order” strikes me as very odd.

I will concede that he has not yet been sentenced, and that there is a chance that his sentence will be “on parole”, and on those grounds one could say that it is wrong to jail him prior to an official sentencing. Therefore, I think the best procedure would be an initial sentence of “This guy is not getting parole. He’s going to prison, and later we’ll decide for how long.” But I realize that this is not the system we have.

[Little_Nemo]

You asked in the OP why his lawyers were saying he was entitled not to be in jail. I explained that - basically, everyone is entitled not to be in jail until the government shows otherwise. In Madoff’s case, the government is saying that the risk of Madoff fleeing the country is sufficient cause to keep him in jail prior to his sentencing. Madoff’s lawyers are arguing that Madoff did not flee the country when he was out of jail before pleading guilty and that his guilty plea and conviction have not increased his flight risk.

[Keeve]

@Little_Nemo

You asked … I explained …

Yeah, I know. I was just ranting. Sorry.

[Fear_Itself]

@MOIDALIZE

That part blew me away. Why would his lawyers let him make a blind plea like that? It doesn’t make any sense.

Because that would entail him providing information to the government on where the money is hidden, and he wants to protect his wife and kids. He is taking a bullet in an attempt to protect them. I don’t think it will work, but I can see the reasoning.

[Gfactor]

The Second Circuit affirmed Madoff’s bail revocation:

“The district court found that in light of the defendant’s age (70) and the length of a potential sentence (150 years), he has an incentive to flee, and that because he has the means to do so, he presents a risk of flight, and therefore should not be released,” the 2nd Circuit said in a written document.

http://money.cnn.com/2009/03/20/news/companies/_appeal/index.htm?postversion=2009032011