Sentence Please
 

OK. We all know that Martha Stewart has been found guilty of lying to the police who were investigating her share dealings. The lifestyle organizer and TV host is famous for her recipes and decorating tips and has a real business empire based on her name.

She is also, however, a convicted criminal.

Should she go to jail? If so, for how long?

Is there a correlation between the two facts? :confused:

Should there be?

What does the laws prescribe?

What would you get for the same conviction?

PantyFanatic,

Interesting. Do you think she should she go to jail? If so, for how long?

She should go for the same prescribed sentence that the convection calls for.

Perhaps the identities of defendants should not be known to ANYBODY (judge, jury, or public) until after sentencing has been rendered based on the facts presented during ANY trial?? :rolleyes:

PantyFanatic,

Interesting. Justice SHOULD be blind, shouldn't it? It might be difficult for prosecutors to decide which cases to prosecute and which to not though.

Why?

Celebrity homemaker Martha Stewart has been sentenced to five months in
prison for lying to investigators about the sale of ImClone Systems
shares.

I know about her sentencing...found out today...and I hate the results. I'm with PF on this one. Where's the difficulty in prosecuting if justice were truly blind and the judge and jury didn't know who they were prosecuting? It's the deed, not the persona, they are prosecuting or...on the other side, defending/disputing. If you or I did EXACTLY what M.S. did...we'd be up the river without a friggin paddle!

Or...do we say it's money that gets one a lesser sentence? Or...do we say it's their contribution to society (or lack thereof)...and if it's a two time loser with no money to his/her name...be gone with um!

No matter the circumstance...the name (be it a celebrity or Fortune 500 hoity-toity...etc.) could technically be omitted from the trial and it'd be fairer. I'm pretty sure of that after watching the O.J. Simpson trial!!!!!!!

If everyone who lied to the feds ( aka creative tax filing etc...) got 5 months we'd solve unemployment by hiring everyone as prison guards.

I know relatively little about this except what I read in the newspapers whilst I was in the US on my trip.

I am still trying to understand your reactions folks.


do you think she got 1 month for lying to the feds and 4 months for being a celebrity or she got some dispensation because she was a celbrity?

I think she should have been fined heavily and given a sentence of 3 months wholly suspended on condition she be of good behaviour for 2 years.

The lady is hardly a dangerous criminal and is not violent or a repeat offender.

Thats my 5 cents worth

Interesting topic.
From what I'm hearing the judge was actually somewhat easy on Ms Stewart.
She got the sentence she did because she lied to the Feds. I don't think her haughty behavior helped her at all......she seems quite oblivious to the fact that she indeed DID commit a crime and has been found guilty of it.
If it were the general population I could have easily believed that they might not know the rules and regulations but Martha knew her shit and she plain old did something unethical. Period.

I think her sentence was fair in that her partner in crime got almost the exact same sentence as she got.......I would have been disappointed if there had been a great disparity in what each party recieved. What was it? 5 months prison, 5 months in home and 2 years probation? Not sure exactly what the details were...LOL

I was a little surprised that her fines were so small. I would have expected them to be higher but I THINK I'm considering her overall wealth when I say that (which isn't really fair of me I guess).

It's been interesting to follow hasn't it?

LixyChick,

In many jurisdictions the accused has the right to face his, or in this instance, her accusers in open court. It could be tricky doing so and at the same time remaining anonymous.

The intended labyrinth of law is not my field of proficiency, but after seeing what the practitioners have done with it, I warrant my say.

Oranges and apples here I believe.

The intent of confronting your accusers is to prevent a system from presenting unsubstantiated charges. It is part and parcel with the requirement of having to prove guilt, not for the defendant to prove innocence……….. even if it doesn’t always happen that way.

In practice, it would be difficult to present detailed facts without identifying a celebrity. After all, that is the definition of “celebrity”. A person recognized by the public for some reason.

The topic here is that the fame of the person often tilts the judicial scales, in either direction, for whatever reason. It seems Law and Process are seldom synonymous with Justice.

I.e. Mike Tyson / O. J. Simpson

I understand that she acted on the knowledge of some insider information in her stock transaction. But I also understand that with that knowledge she was not able to turn a profit, but rather a loss. So it would seem that her insider knowledge was either erroneous or not at all helpful in activing deviously to turn a quick profit.

The case started as one of insider trading, and I believe the Federal Government were determined come hell or high water to make an example out of Martha.

Yes she lied, shame on her for being silly enough to be caught. There are plenty of others that lie to the Federal Government as Lilith pointed out, perhaps they are just crafty enough to not be caught.

All in all, I'm not sure how I really feel about a five month sentence. I've been more focused on the Feds insisting upon using this case to set an example for the general public. Obviously they wouldn't use Jane Doe, housewife as a person to build a high profile case out of to make an example.

I do not follow this or “media hype topics” closely maddy, but my understanding is the profit was already made in this situation. She was a ground floor investor in something that had grown many time in value because of public information regarding the expected FDA approval that would allow the product to go to market. It was the unexpected failure to get the approval that was going to cause the loss when the information became public that she was accused of finding out about and trying to beat.

Regardless of the details, the concern is that sentence is influenced by the person as apposed to the act committed.:(