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?

__________________
Eudaimonia

Is there a correlation between the two facts?

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?

__________________
Eudaimonia

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??

__________________

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.

__________________
Eudaimonia

Why?

__________________

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!!!!!!!

__________________
Minds are like parachutes. They only work when they are open.

~Thomas Dewar~

All the money she has made for the shares should be given to the poor. She should be given Community Service as we call it out here instead of jail. A year working for a soup kitchen or something.

Hello to all by the way!

__________________
Half of a set :halo:

Hi Catch22...long time, no see!

I believe that there always has been and always will be a double standard in the courts. This woman used her inside knowledge to forgo losses. Others didn't have the same choices as her. Her sentence is a joke....not a big deterrent in my opinion.

I surely won't buy any of her products.......not that I ever did!

Hello Bibi.

__________________
Half of a set :halo:

Catch22,

Long time no see. I trust life is treating you well.

__________________
Eudaimonia

I am still kicking.

__________________
Half of a set :halo:

I wonder how the people who lost their life savings from this mess feel about her sentence. Just because she knows those in high places does not make her more privilged to the information she was provided with......She intentionally took a chance, thinking she would not get caught and now has to pay the price....

losses and gains of lifes savings are the risks you take when you play on wall street. Particularly when you dabble in riskier stocks, which ImClone was one.

I wonder if the people who lost their life savings feel that Margaret Stewart is responsible for that happening? What she did had no influence on the collapse, it was going to happen anyway and not because of anything Margaret had done. If someone told me to sell my shares in a company because they knew it was going down the gurgler, I would do so immediatly.

The problem i see in all this is the beat up and the scale of the crime. She didn't reap huge profits at others expense, it was a victimless crime. A petty matter where a big fine would suffice.