Keep Bernard Madoff Free!

sounds like the Robert Vesco fiasco of the late 60's early 70's. We had to go to Costa rica to dig him out. What do you think this punk is going to do?

Ya, right, and how much is Newsweek willing to put on the line to make such a stupid statement. Of course he should be sitting in jail. That will more and likely be the only jail time he sees!!

Okay, so Madoff, like many other high-flying individuals who have lost or are about to lose everything, decides to commit suicide while in home confinement. No defendant. No trial. No fact finding. No possible ability to get any information from him directly in some type of plea bargain scenario, in order to try to find secreted assets. Come on. The guy deserves to be in the protection of a cell. After all, I'm sure he would be able to get it set up like Bugsy Siegel's cell in the movie Bugsy -- with four-course meals served on china, wine, waiters and of course, conjugal visits.

The man ruined many, many peoples lives, he didn't steal a pack of cigarettes. He's acted with impunity both before and after he was exposed, and would have kept at it, if the market didn't tank. He's a major flight risk, and is stashing stuff all over the place for family and friends. We need to make an example of him, and the sooner the better. Punishment for white collar crime needs to be harsh because these are premeditated acts of greed not simply desperation. His lawyers will drag this out so long he'll die of old age before he spends a night in jail. Newsweek is definitely wrong on this one.

Gimein's big mistake is that he didn't check his facts with a lawyer before he wrote the article. The presumption of innocence only attaches when an accused stands before the court.l In the court of public opinion, there is no presumption of innocence. It is always the function of bail to ascertain the likelyhood that the accused will flee. Here, Madoff has a huge incentive to flee and has the money to do it. Newsweek needs journalists who know what they are talking about, not the loose with the facts morons they have now.

I tried to read this article and near the end of the first page I realized I had no clue what the author's point was. I skipped forward thinking it must be a suprise...but no...it was all just dribble...seems like a bunch of sentences kinda linked together ... with no overall meaning.... sorta like Palinspeak.

I tried reading this article...but couldn't find the point....I looked all around...it just seemed likes random sentences leading to nothing.

Bail has not just been set to prevent flight risks. Bail is often denied if the person poses a danger to the public, such as intending to go out and kill someone or rob a bank. Madoff quite clearly presents a danger to the public because he used his privilege of house arrest to attempt to filter millions of dollars to family and friends against a court order. He has used his house arrest to commit additional crimes and cause the people he owes money additional economic damage. Every indication is that he will continue to behave in this manner if given the opportunity. A denial of bail is well justified.

The more I think about this article, the more I'm starting to believe someone hacked into the Newsweek website and posted this as a joke?!

Newsweek pieces rarely impress me but this takes the cake. An entire article based on an inane premise: Bernard Madoff should not go to jail because other people shouldn't go to jail. Perhaps the author should've fully weighed the fact that the 2/3 of the populous of people accused of crime... well... didn't commit a crime that had such widespread negative effects. There is already a precedent for jailing those accused of capital cases, so why not use the same reasoning (such an egregious trespass) to jail Madoff?

If I wanted to be clever, I could say this is absolutely a ???capital??? case. Or, at least, a case about capital.

Newsweek pieces rarely impress me but this takes the cake. An entire article based on an inane premise: Bernard Madoff should not go to jail because other people shouldn't go to jail. Perhaps the author should've fully weighed the fact that the 2/3 of the populous of people accused of crime... well... didn't commit a crime that had such widespread negative effects. There is already a precedent for jailing those accused of capital cases, so why not use the same reasoning (such an egregious trespass) to jail Madoff?

If I wanted to be clever, I could say this is absolutely a ???capital??? case. Or, at least, a case about capital.

I'm glad to read that I'm not alone in thinking this writer is insane!! Madoff must be an uncle or something.

I feel compelled to weigh in again. If the author of this piece will post bail for Madoff as well as agree to be relieved of a pound of flesh (in the Shakespeare way as described in the Merchant of Venice) if Madoff does not appear for court proceedings, I would not protest too much.

This author is still an IDIOT for his poorly reasoned piece.

Really Newsweek, Screw you! The elite in this country deserve nothing. It is time for the majority to get their share and part of that is justice. Let him fry, he's just a crook!

I think the author of this article does not understand psychology. "Madoff turned himself in" because he was going to get caught anyway. He sent watches hoping no one would catch on, but with the intention of moving assets. When caught, he used the same line kids use - "I didn't know!" If he doesn't go to jail he will certainly try something else. It's in his nature.

So maybe the Constitution did not intend imprisonment before trial. Why does everyone think the original Constitution gives the ultimate in how things should work? Times change, people make mistakes and hopefully try to correct them. This country is ridiculous when it insists on sticking with outdated concepts. My favorite - the right to bear arms. I have no problem with hunting and weapons for self-defense. But automatic weapons? Come on people. Because they are available the evil in society are the ones who usually get them. They should only be manufactured for the military and law enforcement. When the Constitution was written, there was little, if any, law enforcement.

I'll bet the writer of this article wrote two articles. One on why Madoff should not be in jail and the other on why he should be in jail. Newsweek wanted the one on why Madoff should not be in jail so that's what we get. That's how the business works.
John Pitts

It is truly amazing there is such a double standard in the federal system. I know of three people now in jail awaiting trail who's financial misdealings were much less than $50B and they sit in jail today. Makes one wonder if the jail doors should not be opened wide and everyone accused of simiilar crimes should not be sent home. I suppose it depends upon the price of your lawyer and who you know.

Mark Gimein appears to be the kind of person who will say anything to make a buck. I'll bet he wrote another article on the reasons Madoff should be in jail so he could sell whatever Newsweek would pay for.
John Pitts
Twin Falls, Idaho