I really like this idea. It is the most just solution, so probably out of the question.
If the Feds sentenced Tommy Chong, who is hardly prison material, and thousands of other violent marijuana smokers, why should Martha Stewart be exempt from the Federal Sentencing Guidelines after being convicted. Tommy Chong is well known and was easily singled out in order to try to send a message to other hard core bong sellers. Stewart on the other hand was trying to sway everyone with her snakey charm, unlaced brownies and believing she was beyond reproach to do such an underhanded thing.
I’ll bet she was a raving bitch Saturday morning and didn’t even want to fix an elegant breakfast brunch.
“…violent marijuana smokers”? 
The stock would have been worth about $51,000 less the next day. But the amount she made in the trade was something like $225,000.
No, rich people can afford to have lawyers available on a constant basis, and her lawyers were capable of keeping her informed if she was breaking the law.
It is not true that a poor person would know the law, esp today.
there are probably hundreds of thousands of laws, and a non-lawyer cannot possibly know what is legal and illegal. I cant even keep up with the gun laws, and there are only about 20,000 gun laws. Not only do we have new laws each day, in each state, and federally, and new state and federal regulations, but the old ones keep changing - what was illegal last year is legal today, and vice versa. There is no way a poor person can drive from one town in one state, and into another town in another state, and know if he is violating the law or not.
Therefore, I would always go lenient on a person who might not have known what he did was illegal, but in the case of a rich person who has a team of lawyers on her payroll, Martha knew darn well she was violating criminal law. Its much much worse when you are rich and you know the law, your lawyers tell you so, and then you violate it, than when you are poor and dont know you are violating some law.
People get prison time for holding up a 7-11 and only stealing $100. If a poor black gets several years for stealing $100 from a 7-11, then Martha’s punishment should be a multiplied by the amount she stole.
I understand your point, but violent crime is always delt with more severely than property crime. Armed robbery is treated more harshly than burglary, a car-jacking is different than stealing a parked car.
She will be facing civil lawsuits for years to come, as it should be.
Yeah, but you’re under the assumption that rich people know the law just because they have lawyers. And I’m saying not all rich people have lawyers. Just because some have money, doesn’t mean they know laws, or even understand what they mean, even if they have lawyers. Are you trying to say that rich people know more about guns laws (for example) than poorer people? Just based on their personal fortune? I doubt that, I’d say that’s something that middle, and lower class America knows more about, IMO. I guess it really depends on the person and what they’re into. Gun fanatics know gun laws, but Joe Blow with Glock 9, might not know transportation laws from state to state. This has nothing to do with money. And just because someone is poor, and didn’t goto Yale or Hav-had doesn’t mean their ignorant of the law.
Either way, ignorance of a law it not an excuse (in court anyway).
Were there any real sort of justice at play, here, Martha Stewart would not, not, not do prison time. The whole charge boils down to whether she sold because Sam Waksal was selling, or sold because the price was dropping. Average Joe Stockholder would’ve been screwed either way - and in fact would have been screwed whether or not Martha pulled out her piddly 50k.
I simply cannot understand the mindset of those who think a highly successful businesswoman should be jailed for twenty years because she didn’t do something stupid, and instead acted as almost all of us would.
Hey she was convicted which makes her “gasp” a criminal. Yes she needs to go to jail. That was an underhanded thing to do. Hope she likes the vertical bar motif. And FREE TOMMY CHONG. Huge difference between a victimless crime and what she did.
First off, she was not convicted of illegal stock trading. She was convicted of lying to the SEC and covering up her shady (if, as you suggest, perfectly natural) bolt from ImClone, as well as conspiracy in covering up her otherwise merely stupid actions. Perjury is a felony, and she is just as guilty as any other perjuror. Conspiracy is a felony. She is a felon whether you like her or not.
Her knowledge of the law was not really in question, since she was an erstwhile stockbroker who knew the law very well. The relatively small amount of the transaction is not relevant either. Being at the time a billionaire, Stewart could have shrugged off the loss with hardly a notice. But her greed caused her to act as if her whole financial future rested on those stocks. Ironically, it did, but not for the reasons she imagined.
I don’t think she deserves twenty years in the pen either, but I will be very disappointed in American “justice” if she doesn’t serve at least a few months in jail. I’m sick of celebrities’ getting special treatment. They eat and sleep and s**t just like the rest of us mortals, and they should suffer for their misdeeds no less.
She was screwed for no other reason than raw jealousy. She never should’ve been put on trial in the first place. The whole thing is a fucking travesty of justice and it makes me sick.
stewart was never charged with, let alone convicted of, insider trading. the actual charges related to her failure to cooperate with the original investigation of insider trading. the judge threw out as baseless an additional federal felony charge–that stewart’s insistence on her own innocence was an attempt to maniupulate the price of her company’s stock.
http://money.cnn.com/2004/03/05/news/companies/martha_verdict/?cnn=yes
anybody think that maybe martha was being made an example of? at worst, her broker told her that the head of a company in which she owned some stock–a tiny part of her total worth–was dumping his own stock, and maybe she should do the same. she saved herself about a $51,000 loss. maybe her broker should go down for having a big mouth. but she didn’t steal anything from anybody, she didn’t manufacture a giant fraudulent enterprise (a la enron etc.), she didn’t sell a product that killed people (ford pintos, firestone tires, etc.), (fill in your own examples here). if she goes to prision, it will be because she didn’t help the feds build a case againsit her. i’m not sure that’s the way the system is supposed to work.
Although I do dislike Martha Stewart quite a bit based on the way I’ve heard and read she treats people, I don’t really think she ought to go to prison. I think she’s suffered enough.
However, I must say that although she was never charged with or convicted of “insider trading,” she was charged and convicted of lying and trying to cover up the fact that she had.
It’s not like the charges she was convicted of suddenly materialised out of a vacumn.
Perfect analogy!
There’s no doubt that Martha brandished a weapon and put someone’s life in danger when she sold this stock.
If she goes to jail for 20 years she’ll be there longer than most rapists and child molesters.
I have a lot of respect for the woman, and did my research when the scandal began. Investigators have actually admitted to using her as a ‘poster girl,’ warning people that she’s not just some investor at the kitchen table. It basically boils down to being horrified that she hasn’t been teaching stockbrokers’ wives how to sew and cook all this time out of pure charity, but that she might actually be in it for (among other things) the money! I feel betrayed. And while she would normally receive support in the media by feminist groups, many of them feel she has set women’s lib back 50 years, so no deal.
Yes, I was horrified to learn that she lied about her stock trading for the money. If she’d done it out of the goodness of her heart, I wouldn’t have minded. :rolleyes:
Which is something he’s not allowed to do, and he surely knew it. The fact that it’s a small part of her net worth doesn’t matter. $51,000 or $225,000 is plenty of money.
You didn’t notice who her co-defendant was, did you?
Well, I, for one, believe she DID hurt and steal from people. Her actions undermine the supposed transparency and fairness of our capital markets which are one of the key components of our (relatively) successful economic system. So, she hurt the ImClone shareholders who bought what she sold, the K-Mart and Martha Stewart shareholders whose stock tumbled as a result of her actions and the subsequent scrutiny, and all other stockholders, especially those who “play fair”, by reducing the fairness of the system. And by devaluing/reducing confidence in our free market system, she hurt us all, albeit to a minute, probably immeasurable extent. But the cumulative effect of thousands of Marthas shouldn’t be ignored, and that’s what the prosecutors are aiming at, I believe.
Now why was she picked for prosecution before all the others who are likely doing the same thing? Was she being made an example of? And selected especially because she’s female and operates contrary to traditional female role expectations? My thoughts are “yes” and “perhaps, by some”, but that doesn’t mean she shouldn’t have been prosecuted, only that they should go after others, too, until the deterent effect is achieved. (Yeah, naive, I know.)
And given that prison time is given for much smaller offenses, yes, I think some prison time is warranted. Raises the old question of whether restricting someone’s freedom is for punishment, deterent-effect (on others), or to “keep the streets safe”.
Also because she didn’t take the 1 year probation the prosectuors offered her months ago (will look for cite).
From here: www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4468841/
“Had she admitted wrongdoing in early 2002, she could have gotten off with a $200,000 fine and no jail time. And NEWSWEEK has learned that the Feds gave Martha another opportunity to avoid prison. Federal prosecutors offered Martha a deal last April to cop to one count of making a false statement, say several sources familiar with the offer. She would have received probation and continued working at her company, they say.”