A Martha Stewart analogy

[holeinboatoutatsea]

I am of the opinion that if someone committed a crime, and was convicted of that crime, they should be extended the same level of justice as the rest of us.The people who bought stock after she unloaded it were robbed. Period.

Let's imagine two scenarios.

A robber goes into a convenience store and tells the cashier to hand over the money or they will be shot. Cashier hands over the money, robber leaves. No shots fired, but the store has been robbed.

A robber goes into a convenience store and tells the cashier to hand over the money or they will be shot. Cashier hands over the money, robber shoots him/her. The store has been robbed with injuries.

Is one of these robbers innocent?

Of course not. Money was stolen in both. In one, someone was injured, but remember, money was stolen in both.

Would your answer change if in the first circumstance the robber turned out to be a famous tv actor who was on drugs at the time?

I would hope not.

A crime is a crime is a crime. Some are worse than others, but a crime is still a crime. Who committed it is immaterial.

It is difficult to read some of the posts asking that Martha not be convicted of a crime.

[UrbScotty]

1. Well put. (nt)

[Junkdrawer]

2. If one person steals billions and one steals 20 grand, is it fair...

that the one who steals billions skates because he buys more corrupt politicians?

[holeinboatoutatsea]

3. No

but is it fair for the one that stole 20k to skate away untouched?

I don't think so.

Sure, I want Lay to be tried, but I also want anyone else who cheats, lies and steals through deceptions to be tried.

Why is that so difficult to understand?

Some people steal bicycles, some steal cars.

Both are thieves. The punishment should suit the crime, but it doesn't make it not a crime to only steal a bicycle.

[Junkdrawer]

5. Why is that so difficult to understand? - Because we feel Martha...

was singled out for vigorous enforcement because she was a Democrat, because it was felt that she would garner little support, and most of all, because it would take some of the heat off Bush for NOT going after Lay.

[holeinboatoutatsea]

7. She was convicted because a jury found her guilty

of four felonies.

What if your family lost thousands of dollars in savings because they bought stock that was unknowingly worthless while someone in the know saves those losses and walks away? Wouldn't you want that person prosecuted?

[Junkdrawer]

19. Your scenario is about 100 thousand times more likely with Kenny...

than Martha. Are you 100 thousand times more mad at Kenny?

[holeinboatoutatsea]

21. My anger knows no end

He'll get what's coming to him after Kerry takes office and the criminals are run out of town.

I have to believe that. It still doesn't change the basic fact that a criminal is a criminal is a criminal. Crime and punishment should be just.

[rock]

4. I have seen no covincing proof of Martha's guilt

Suspicion and accusation are not proof.

[holeinboatoutatsea]

6. The jury did

and remember, juries are chosen by both defense and prosecution.

I wasn't on the jury. I don't want to debate the jury system, however. I know there have been flawed convictions and flawed acquitals.

[napi21]

8. Obviously the jury did!

I think you are not recognizing what the acusations were. It was not insider trading, although it sounded like it. She was acused of lying to the grand jury, lying to the feds and lying to comgress when she testified.

Martha was a Stock Broker at one time. There's no way you are going to make be believe if she had issued a stop loss order, it would not have been in writing somewhere! Because of her experience, she KNEW BETTER!

I don't think she should get 20 years, nor do I think she ever will, but even "easy time" will very hard for her. She is a very independent woman who's used to doing what she wants when she wants to. Being under any restriction is going to be very difficult for her.
as well it should be!

[historian]

9. absolutely

but...what bothers me is that the likes of Ken Lay who, intentionally and with malice, destroyed thousands of lives, and nothing is being done about him! Between him and Steward, he is the one who should be incarcerated for life!!

[osaMABUSh]

10. Steal a little and they throw you in jail steal a lot and they...

"They say that patriotism is the last refuge
To which a scoundrel clings.
Steal a little and they throw you in jail,
Steal a lot and they make you king."

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/sweetheart.html

[holeinboatoutatsea]

11. Steal a little

and it's still theft.

Circumstances should be considered in every individual case, and that is why mandatory sentencing is ridiculous and should be unconstitutional.

[Dookus]

12. I've never believed

that she should be let off scott-free if she committed a crime.

However, she was being prosecuted for lying about a crime that they never charged her with (insider trading). It's like Bill Clinton lying about a legal, consensual blowjob.

I always felt the prosecution was a distraction from the real criminals - an attempt to say "see?! We're going after the corporate crooks!", except they're going after a totally small-time player.

They should have cut a deal where she paid a fine equal to twice or three times the profit she made, then moved on. Instead, millions were spent prosecuting her, and millions more will be spent on the appeals.

I says this as someone who really really hates Martha Stewart.

[Catherine Vincent]

13. I agree.

If murderers can cop a plea, why couldn't Martha Stewart?

[holeinboatoutatsea]

15. That's a good question (nt)

[NoMoreRedInk]

27. She could have***

nm

[holeinboatoutatsea]

14. I agree she should pay a fine and

I think whoever bought that damn stock should be personally OVERcompensated. I wouldn't feel better if she gets jail time. I just want fines and victim compensation.

This is the part I have trouble with

"However, she was being prosecuted for lying about a crime that they never charged her with (insider trading). It's like Bill Clinton lying about a legal, consensual blowjob."

She was prosecuted for four crimes (felonies) and found guilty by a jury. I don't see the comparison, but Clinton lied about personal "affairs" that didn't hurt anyone while Stewart robbed many by lying. Those people lost money because she lied. Maybe their kids lost that semester's college money. Hell, I don't know. But I do know that there is a difference.

No one gets hurt or many get hurt?

[Dookus]

17. well it's really hard to quantify

who was hurt and how much.

She sold a small number of shares, which MIGHT have caused a slight decline in the stock price, but it's hard to measure that decline against the much more significant effect the FDA report caused. Further, anybody who retained the stock wasn't hurt at all. Imclone is doing very well right now.

However, she wasn't charged with or convicted of insider trading. The crimes she was convicted of had absolutely NO financial impact on anybody else.

[holeinboatoutatsea]

18. I hope you are right

That's the basis for my perturbedness (word?). Thinking that others were screwed financially because someone had knowledge.

[Dookus]

20. The whole issue of insider trading

is not necessarily that people are being ripped off. It's that it undermines the whole basis of the market. If it were not illegal, people would have no faith in the market itself.

That being said, it IS possible to screw people somewhat via insider trading, but it would have to be a huge sale that crashed the price.

[NoMoreRedInk]

24. Stock in MSO dropped in half when news broke...

that its CEO was utterly stupid enough to put the entire company and all of its shares' value at stake in order to save $50K.

She cost a lot of people a lot of money for something that was utterly stupid. There are many, many investors who'd love to see her neck wrung.

[NoMoreRedInk]

26. Don't forget about the shareholders of Martha Stewart Omnimedia....

their shares lost half of their value because its CEO was a moron for an afternoon.

[Dookus]

29. But she wasn't charged

with any crimes relating to MSO.

I could argue that the prosecutors are to blame for that decline, not Martha Stewart.

[NoMoreRedInk]

23. The couldn't get Al Capone on murder charges...

but he did committ a crime and deserved to be punished. The strategy they used on Martha is a valid one, and they've been using it for decades.

[Dookus]

28. actually

I read it was incredibly unusual to charge her for obstructing justice in the investigation of a crime for which was never charged.

[DoNotRefill]

16. In the Martha Stewart case....

everything I've seen points to her innocence. From what I understand happened, she got a call from her broker telling her that there was a problem with a stock she owned. I have no doubt that her broker had obtained inside information, but don't think Martha had any clue that it was inside information. If she did, there's no way she would have sold it, since the cost-benefit analysis was so lopsided.

I think an overzealous prosecutor got ahold of it, and decided to railroad her.

FREE MARTHA!!!!!

[preciousdove]

22. Apples and Oranges

The market was going to go down. The other shareholders were going to lose their money anyway. because someone was going to get out first that is the way it works. It is all insider trading of one sort or another and she was not charged with insider trading. So what did she cover up and eactly where was the harm and to who exactly. There was a sell agreement. Martha did not solicit the information on INCLONE and had no way to know the source was improper.

It was a setup from the getgo. The FDA "in a surprise move" did not approve the INCLONE product. They knew who the big shareholders were and were waiting to smear them no matter what to take the heat off of Enron, World Com and Ken Lay.

The Stock Market is the biggest pyramid scheme in the world. Martha was not inside INCLONE and she did cooperate. I fault her defense team. I could see where she might be a witness against whoever was giving inside information but the whole idea of the stock market is that you make decsions based on the best information available to you.

Just because Martha Stewart is not your favorite celebrity and she has more money than you does not mean she should be convicted on trumpted up charges. Get a grip. We are getting as bitter as the freepers.

[Taxloss]

25. I'm new here.

How do you start a thread?

[Dookus]

30. Welcome to DU

:hi:

There is a posting limit before you can start a new thread. No one knows exactly what it is, but it isn't very high. Contribute to a few threads and when you have enough posts, there will be a Post button at the top of each forum.