That changes following conviction to a standard where the person has to prove to the court that he does not pose a flight risk. A rich man who likely has considerable wealth secreted beyond knowledge of the court and is facing spending the remainder of his life in prison if he does not flee obviously has an extremely heavy burden in convincing a judge he poses no flight risk. the judge is no longer operating under the requirement that he consider the person might have a defense to some or all of the charges, or might cut a deal substantially reducing his exposure.

I think they should be impoverished by fines and restitution and placed under severe supervision.

Severe supervision?

What, like limiting freedom of movement and such?

I learned just a couple of years ago that the cap on personal contributions to 401K plans no longer exists. The once 17% of your gross maximum contribution is now gone and people could have contributed every dime if they felt they needed to in order to catch up and be set for retirement.

"You must have watched different TV channels  than me today....I saw more about the victims than about the court case. They were on every channel and are also very prominent in news articles."

  The idea that the victims are not and should not be  part of any  court case is the kind of thinking that can lead lawyers to completely misread their case and poorly serve clients. Trials are not about abstractions and one-sided, dogmatic philosophies.

AND he had foundations, charities and Elie Weisle for god's sake. AND he said he diversified so it wasn't like he put everyone into one bank stock or something.

Investing with Madoff made sense at the time with what people could know.

At the very time (rather eight years late) that we need a healthy economy to invest in the transition away from fossil fuels, we are mired in a global economic crisis.  Plus the whole debacle in Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't help at all.

I am having a hard time working up even a minimal amout of compassion for him, considering the lives he has damaged and the dreams he has shattered.  And not just on an individual basis - there are a number of charitable organizations and foundations which will not be able to do the same level of outreach or help as many people as they might otherwise be able to.  And in these difficult times, that is even more of a loss.

Just removing him from society is not enough; I would really rather see him on work-release, sentenced to working for those who have nothing.  That his wife still has substantial assets is pretty much of a slap-in-the-face to those who provided her husband with the means to accumulate those assets, and who will be lucky to ever get anything back - it wouldn't upset me at all if she loses those assets.

18 U.S.C. § 3143
a) Release or Detention Pending Sentence.--

(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2, the judicial officer shall order that a person who has been found guilty of an offense and who is awaiting imposition or execution of sentence, other than a person for whom the applicable guideline promulgated pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 994 does not recommend a term of imprisonment, be detained, unless the judicial officer finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to the safety of any other person or the community if released under section 3142 (b) or (c). If the judicial officer makes such a finding, such judicial officer shall order the release of the person in accordance with section 3142 (b) or (c).

**

  The "law" in fact REQUIRES a judge to order detention following conviction unless he finds by clear and convincing evidence the person is not a flight risk. Prior to conviction, but not after, a court is required to release a defendant if he finds that any combination of conditions imposed in connection with release will suffice to assure appearance. That does not apply after conviction. After conviction the existence of possible conditions is no longer the deciding issue; the deciding issue is whether the person has proven by clear and convincing evidence he is not a flight risk.

  So, is the person getting nothing but SS, but that doesn't make them rich either.

   I do believe though that my fictional couple would be receiving closer to 3000 a month from SS if we assume a typical salary progression over the working careers, and I by no means would consider them poor --- just a long way from rich.

  Even if we assume they  decided,  we've provided adequately already for the kids, our goal is to die slightly in debt (not a bad strategy) rather than leave children we put through school money, $36,000 plus the million is a long way from luxury.

  No one can predict market returns or inflation (as we so painfully know) but prudently if plan for the eventuality tat we might both live to exceed ninety, we might have a plan to exhaust our wealth in thirty years figuring we can survive on SS after that because we won't be living it up  much.

  That would mean even if we chose the rosiest scenario  forecast (blind guess) of the future value of our million, we would spend less than $100K per year. That plus the SS would make us less well off than our previous middle class existence even if we assume no inflation.

around a thousand a month coming in from SS

That will barely cover the medical insurance for him and his wife and the property taxes and insurance on the house.