Under the sentencing guidelines, it's pretty rare for nonviolent, first offenders to get "the max." Still, five months in federal prison isn't a picnic.

Posted by: Geoff Brown at July 16, 2004 10:48 AM

Frankly, I don't think she should be spending one day in jail. Personally, I believe that she is going to jail simply because she is a famous, successful business woman. She wouldn't have even been prosecuted without her fame. This is disgusting.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 10:58 AM

I agree with you Jane. I LOVE Martha, even though she's a Democrat. I love her show, her idea and her books! I think she's fabulous and she's Polish!

Geoff,
Many of the experts on TV were saying they expected her to get between 10-16 months in prison so 5 months is better than that.

Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at July 16, 2004 11:08 AM

Maybe fame played a part: it probably did, at least in her sentencing. Of course OJ got off because of fame, so it works both ways. If she had gotten off, folks would cry because she was so rich she could afford the best lawyers to manipulate the system.

My take is this: Blame her "fame" if it makes you feel better, but she did commit a crime and her sentence was within the allowable punishments for that crime. She did it. She's guilty and she got punished.

I'm sorry if you like her doilies or whatever, but famous as she is, loved or hated by the populace as she is, she very clearly did the crime. Her fame wouldn't have played any part in the process if she had done the right thing.

Posted by: Big Dan at July 16, 2004 11:10 AM

I agree Dan. Five months. Big frickin' deal. She's out in time for Christmas with her nutty fruitcakes. I do more hard time spending ten months every year with eighth graders.

Frankly, there will be people who say she got too much of a punishment because of her status and those who say she got too little because of her status. Point remains she was convicted of a federal crime and all the cries that she shouldn't serve a day in jail are really completely out of line, IMHO.

Posted by: Vickie at July 16, 2004 11:17 AM

One of the interesting problems is her "crime."

I understand why it (insider trading? whatever) is considered a crime. But I find it amusing and disconcerting that it is a crime for someone to do the completely reasonable & rational thing.

Oh, and lying. Well, that pisses me off a lot more than her being rational. I'm not sure that the lies in this case warrant the punishment, though.

Of course, these are just my non-mainstream opinions.

Posted by: Ach at July 16, 2004 11:36 AM

What we spend prosecuting this case? 5 or 10 million dollars. All for a stock transaction that netted $50,000? This should have been an open and shut case with restitution paid. Instead, it was a circus that included lying FBI agents testifying under oath. If this isn't a microcosm of all that is wrong with our justice system, I don't know what is.

I saw her comments after the sentencing and she was unrepentant to say the least. She also pointed out that a personal financial transaction has costed 200 people their jobs at her company. America is definitely safer with Martha in the slammer and it only cost us millions of taxpayer dollars and 200 people their jobs. What a deal!

Posted by: Ralph Stefan at July 16, 2004 11:40 AM

Exactly, Ralph.

Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at July 16, 2004 11:44 AM

What Ralph said. She was prosecuted because she pissed off a DOJ prosecuter, plain and simple. To me prison is for serious criminals, people who harm others either physically or tell lies that hurt a BUNCH of people monitarily. How is society protected by Martha Steward doin' time? It seems the prosecutorial function in our Federal Government is used too often in a vindictive way (Ken Starr anyone?)to settle political or career scores. There are a lot of people out there getting away with real crime because we use our resources in goin' after a productive member of society who got caught out telling an inconsequential (but self-serving) lie. Our priorities are seriously screwed up in this country.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 12:05 PM

PS If K-Mart quits Martha, I quit K-Mart.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 12:07 PM

I'd be willing to bet dollars to Dunkin' Donuts that if the woman got off with the thirty grand fine and some house arrest, the same people saying that she got off "because of her fame" would be saying "there's your judicial system for you...favoring the rich and famous."

It honestly goes to show you there is no pleasing people.

Oh, and Ralph, about your comment that "a personal financial transaction has costed [sic] 200 people their jobs at her company"..I very well may be misreading you, but the way I interpret your comment, Martha is the victim here. The woman is a lying, vindictive shrew, her own people have said so, and she knew exactly what she was doing when she did it. HER ACTIONS began the domino effect that cost those 200 people their jobs. I have absolutely no pity whatsoever for her. I still maintain she got off about as scott-free as you can get.

Posted by: Vickie at July 16, 2004 12:16 PM

"The woman is a lying, vindictive shrew, her own people have said so,"

And I dare say, that is exactly what makes her guilty in your mind. I hope that not all the shrews in the US go to jail. I hope that only real criminals who have really harmed society are incarcerated...not some one you just don't particularly like because she has had some fights with her neighbors or fired an employee on occasion.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 12:24 PM

Vickie,
Last I looked, we have more people in prison per capita than any country on the planet. It's a sad commentary when pot heads and people like Martha are sitting in prison. There was plenty of restitution that could have been paid on this short of sending her to prison. The thought of me buying Martha breakfast, even if it is a bowl of cornflakes is a little too much for me to stomach. What would be wrong with having her pay a million dollars in fines and penalties and having her do community service?

I honestly believe we can improve this system and put the focus on rehabilitation for first time non-violent offenders instead building this behemouth of a prison system. I could see some serious prison time for Martha if this was her second or third offense but this whole circus was a bit much. This system is broke and it needs to be fixed.

Posted by: Ralph Stefan at July 16, 2004 12:28 PM

Yes, five months is better than sixteen months, no doubt about it. It's still five months in federal prison, though, which is worse than, say, zero months in prison, which was my point. Better her than me, I guess, though I'm not sure exactly how this whole prosecution made the world a better place.

The really stupid thing about all of this is that the stock she dumped is currently selling at $22 MORE per share than she dumped it for. So not only is she headed for the slammer, but she also screwed herself out of tens of thousands of dollars.

Posted by: Geoff Brown at July 16, 2004 01:54 PM

Well, isn't that the ultimate irony...

Posted by: Rosemary the Queen of All Evil at July 16, 2004 02:06 PM

"The thought of me buying Martha breakfast, even if it is a bowl of cornflakes is a little too much for me to stomach. What would be wrong with having her pay a million dollars in fines and penalties and having her do community service?"

Ralph, I'd have to say I agree with you here. That 30 grand was a fucking joke. I have more consumer debt than that and that is no lie.

Posted by: Vickie at July 16, 2004 02:38 PM

Well,(if you want irony) today her own stock took a 6% boost so far. She's making a bundle today as she owns 61% of her companies stock. I'll be ordering a subscription today of one her magazines, myself.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 02:44 PM

Her crime in particular may have cost more to prosecute than her crime in particular was worth.

However, if you DON'T prosecute insider trading, nobody but insiders trade for profit anymore. If you allow those with the inside track to score big, it really is at our expense.

The fact that people know her name means nothing to me. The fact that she broke a law and was convicted is reassuring to me. The fact that a law is in place that keeps my mutual funds a safe investment on a relatively level playing field is great.

Posted by: Big Dan at July 16, 2004 03:39 PM

She lied to the DOJ prosecuter. That was her crime. Her stock broker was charged and convicted of insider trading, not Martha.

But yes, prosecution of such illegal activities is supposed to protect us all. However, because she IS famous is the only reason you ever even knew that this little crime occured or that it was prosecuted for that matter. The prosecuter made it plain in the run up to the trial that he was determined to prove that rich and famous people can't lie to him without MAJOR trouble. If she were just an unkown but rich business woman, he wouldn't have bothered. His ego was definitely showing.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 04:00 PM

I know what her crime was, but I do appreciate the clarification.

My response was mainly to Ach's apparent idea that insider trading is a victimless non-crime.

Posted by: Big Dan at July 16, 2004 04:58 PM

Dan

Point taken.

Posted by: jane m at July 16, 2004 05:06 PM

"My response was mainly to Ach's apparent idea that insider trading is a victimless non-crime."

I understand that it is not victimless. I also understand that if you will lose money by not dumping a certain stock or that you could gain money by purchasing more stock...and not doing so...is quite irrational. I understand that the rational thing is not always the "fair" thing, or even the "right" thing. But I think this is one of those times when it should be: I think the whole concept of stocks is sketchy and subject to abuse, and I think it should be limited contractually rather than by law (and then the law would only apply as it does to contracts). But that is just me, and we could argue about that until the sun goes down.

Finally, as was pointed out, her crime was being a liar rather than insider trading. So, regarding her, my point was moot & ill informed. Such is my fate.

Posted by: Ach at July 16, 2004 07:39 PM

I agree with Jane M., again. This is what I wrote on this in Dean's World:

I agree with Arnold Harris, again. I hadn't really known much of Martha Stewart until this controversy. But, the interior design of the condominium within which I am dwelling was inspired by Martha Stewart. It is quite elegant.

The attack on Martha Stewart, the prosecution, all the snide jokes, has but one motive: hatred of the good for being the good. The mediocrities envy and hate everyone who is richer, stronger, more intelligent, more beautiful, prouder, than themselves. They hate everyone who is above them. They hate "arrogance", i.e., pride, the noblest of virtues. They hate "elites". This is the root of the persecution of Jews and homosexuals. This is the root of the hatred of America and the West by inferior nations that culminated in the mass murder of September 11, 2001.

It would be just if she were to quit, take some low-level job where she makes enough to live, but never, ever give anyone the benefit of her ideas ever again. Let those who sneer at her and at all those better than themselves, I say let them freeze and starve to death in the dark. Let them stew in their own juices. It's time for Atlas to shrug.

Posted by: Steven Malcolm Anderson the Lesbian-worshipping gun-loving selfish aesthete at July 17, 2004 02:47 PM

I think I see the problem.

Martha-ites are upset about the MOTIVATION for prosecuting her.

I don't care one way or the other about the motivation. What I care about is whether or not she's guilty.

She did the crime. She deserves punishment, and she got the minimum allowable punishment for her crime. That's it for me, all tied up nicely there.

Maybe she doesn't get prosecuted if she's not Martha Stewart, but then again lots of non-Martha Stewarts get prosecuted in this country, so who knows?

Whatever would or wouldn't have happened, no matter how tasty her casseroles, no matter how famous and loved/hated, she broke the law. Done and done.

Posted by: Big Dan at July 17, 2004 03:29 PM

Okay Martha did something stupid and got caught but there's no denying that she has been made an example of (pardon my horrible sentence structure). I'll still buy her towels. Get back to me when we get around to sentencing Ken Lay.

I saw an article in the Freep about KMart reaffirming their commitment to Martha, which was good to see. Not that they really had a choice in the matter.

Posted by: Erica at July 18, 2004 06:17 AM

Martha Stewart isn't my favorite but I'm not sure she wasn't targeted as the next Leona Helmsley. She's wealthy, intelligent, isn't above board honest,and probably didn't deserve most of what has been described in the press.I think she could have avoided most all of the controversy had she accepted an offer to plead and pay a fineand a suspended jail term. Certainly, she could have afforded the fine and has enough PR people to counter bad publicity. I do not think her wealthy attorneys have done her any notable service that a common sense trial attorney couldn't have negotiated. Maybe her crime was hubris in attempting to proffer the squeaky clean imagery reserved primarily for the really young and innocent. But she did do one thing wrong. She lied. That was proven. And now all the queens horses and all the queens men are trying to put Martha Stewart Inc. back together again. In the meantime she plays the victim of cruel fate. And her active duty jail time of five months is two years down the road after her appeals have been exhausted. Certainly that ought be plenty of time for public media sympathy assaults. But, the facts are the facts one of which is she could have pled the case and did have the opportunity to do just that. She chose lying and self-destructed 200 of her employees and how many thousands of investors, including mutual fund managers that thought they were dealing with a squeaky clean operation.

Posted by: Catch 22 at July 18, 2004 10:50 AM

Fairly appropriate sentence, given the situation. Because of the unique nature of her "brand" (i.e. Martha is the brand), it could have been a much harsher assault on her company.

I am taking into account this is how prosecutors launch their political careers. Still, she did it, and as the one person whose actions could bring severe harm to the company, she had a responsibility to her shareholders and employees to be squeaky clean. She further had a responsibility to cop something if it would help the shareholders. She failed them.

I understand those who argue the Ken Lays of the world are bigger fish (although, in this case, we were all waiting for Fastow to cop a plea in return...it will go down).

Regrettably, it's crap like this that have us all spending money and time complying with Sarbannes-Oxley (as if fraud wasn't a crime already. Sheesh).

Posted by: Dave in Texas at July 18, 2004 12:36 PM

Martha was "made an example of"???

How, by getting the minimum sentence? By getting huge publicity that drove her stock up?

If she had gotten the max on a first offense, then maybe I'd agree.

I'd think that the minimum punishment for a crime you clearly committed on your first offense is how it should be. So if she was "made an example of" it was an example of justice in action.

Posted by: Big Dan at July 18, 2004 01:09 PM

She did commit a crime. The thing that makes insider trading illegal is that it disadvantages people who don't know someone on the inside. And of all people, former-stock-broker Martha should have known better (or should have thought of more creative ways to hide it).

On the other hand, I'm interested to know which house it is in which she is going to be arrested.

Posted by: theinfamousj at July 18, 2004 11:50 PM

Her queenship was on Larry King this evening announcing she will be writing a book on how to deal with such distasteful ordeals of injustices and how badly it can hurt some companies. She even allowed how her daughter cried genuine real tears but she herself saved her 83 year old mother the ordeal of having to sit in real court to listen to the finding of her being (ermmh) guilty of a (choke, sob, sob, sob) crime. Larry of course blended it all in nicely with allowing Ms Stewart the honor of telling us of the (ermmmh) kindly female judge's understanding in giving her the most minumum of sentences. Surely those meany prosecutors and the nasty jury failed to realize (sob, sob) her painful situation in such audacitious encumberances. By the way, yes she was found guilty of lying by the jury of twelve. The public at large are sure such a finding will not invoke a serious restriction on her freedom.

Posted by: Catch 22 at July 20, 2004 12:25 AM

I am completely floored by terrible reasoning I've seen in this thread!

Big Dan: "she very clearly did the crime..." "Her crime in particular may have cost more to prosecute than her crime in particular was worth. However, if you DON'T prosecute insider trading, ..." (Dan seems to think that Stewart is in jail for insider trading) "She did the crime. She deserves punishment..."

Vickie: "Point remains she was convicted of a federal crime..." "...I have absolutely no pity whatsoever for her. I still maintain she got off about as scott-free as you can get." (emphasis added)

Ach: "One of the interesting problems is her 'crime.' I understand why it (insider trading? whatever) is considered a crime." (Ach apparently thinks that Stewart is in jail for the insider trading charge)

Catch 22: "She chose lying."

theinfamousj: "She did commit a crime. The thing that makes insider trading illegal..." (theinfamouj also seems to think that Stewart is in jail for insider trading)

Has no one sat down and worked through the events here?

-Martha Stewart was arrested and charged with insider trading.

-The prosecution could not build a case around what they had. Recall that the jury did not find her guilty of insider trading.

-Somewhere during her interviews, she lied to a Federal agent. BTW, can anyone tell me -specifically- what she lied about? I do know that she was not under oath at the time.

-The Feds could not build a real case against her, so to save face (not to mention indulge in a bit of petty vengence) they decided to prosecute her on what is in truth a bullshit charge. Since most folks who end up on important-case juries don't have the collective IQ of a clam, much less a backbone, they passively digested the instructions spoon-fed to them, and found her guilty.

Here's the point, boys and girls; there's this lovely little law that lying to a Federal agent (or any Federal representative, if memory serves) is a felony, even if that person is not under oath.

Here's an example: a man is questioned by the FBI for something they're investigating at his workplace. One of the routine questions is where he was on a particular evening, or weekend. Recall that our joe is not under oath. Let's also say that joe was cheating on the missus (or mister, whatever) and fibbed about where he was: something irrelevant the investigation.

Now normally this isn't too much of a problem, but suppose the Feds think our joe can be useful. They want him, basically, to spy for them. Our joe, being the practical sort, says "uhh, no thanks!," but this doesn't make the G-men happy.

They say "joe, we know you've lied to our agents. If we choose to prosecute, you will be charged with a felony, and we will convict you."

What's our joe supposed to do?

Now call me silly and old-fashioned, but there's a name for this: blackmail. Just because Federal agents are playing the game doesn't make it right. That law is nothing more than a bullshit way to wiggle past constitutional rights such as due process, or double jeapordy. It's a kind of catch-all to which Feds can resort when they don't have a real case against someone.

Want a real-life example? I have a near-parallel to hand: Bill Clinton testified -under oath- that he didn't have sex with Monical Lewinsky. Despite what your personal position (Donk, Derm, for or against) in point of fact Clinton did in fact lie under oath. Perjury is a felony, last I heard.

This made Bill Clinton subject to impeachment and prosecution. Quite a few conservative/Republicans feel that lying under oath -for whatever reason- is not acceptable behavior for the President of the United States. I'm not talking about just the Clinton-haters here; Lord only knows the number of odd looks I got here in Southwestern Ohio when I tried to point out the ethical problems of how Starr caught him in that lie. These folks have very simple (but not simple-minded) rules. In this case, "the sumbitch lied, throw him in jail!"

But here's the problem: what the devil does Clinton humping anyone have to do with the Whitewater investigation!? Somebody answer that for me, please? What does the location of the "Willy" penis in 1996 have to do with land deals in Arkansas before Clinton got elected? Did he hide confidential memos inside of Monica? What?

As I said, I'm a kinda old-fashioned guy. In this case it means I think that a prosecution should stay on some sort of track that is remotely related to the original charge.

In other words, no fishing expeditions. The Lewinsky affair (heh!) had nothing to do with Whitewater, except that Kevin Starr was a tremendous woody to nail the President. Add your own disgusting speculations here. :)

Clinton was, in fact, more guilty than Stewart. He committed a recognizable crime (perjury). Stewart's only crime (the only one they could convict her of at any rate) was only so because the Feds said so. If the Congress passed a law that flipping the bird to a Federal representative, or spitting on them was felony assault, would the readers here bend over and say "Thank you sir! May I have another!?"

A law only has true force when it can be considered just; that it carries some valid moral or ethical reasoning behind it. This contemptible catch-all is anything but just. I dread to meet my forefathers when my time comes, that I will be forced to explain just how American citizens have become so slavish in bowing down to their civil "servants."

Hell, there's still parts of this county where lying to the "Revenuers" is not only an obligation, but a sacred duty!

We are descended from men who revolted against the British Empire because that government had become opressive and unjust. Today all we hear is "well, she did break the law!"

I suppose that at least some of the commenters in Her Majesty's thread feel that Stewart has not been truly persecuted; after all, she's filthy rich, and so on. What these people obviously have not considered is that the same unjust practices are used against citizens in this country every day, and damn near all of them don't have Martha Stewarts attorneys to protect them.

Ladies and gentlemen, I put it to you that an an unjust or unethical law is no respector of wealth or privelege; that in fact such a law does even more damage to the common people, who have fewer resources to legally protect themselves.

A long time ago, Englishmen would band together to defend the local knight or baron when unjustly accused or prosecuted; not in fear of retribution, or to curry favor, but in the recognition that what threatened one citizens' rights threatened everyone's rights, high or low!

So yes, Martha Stewart did, in fact, break the law. What we have to ask ourselves is whether that law is just, or not?

Remember this: we were born free! Truly, the only people who can put chains on Americans are ourselves.

Posted by: Casey Tompkins at July 27, 2004 12:22 AM