Do we need to be protected from Martha?

[pax]

Martha Stewart today was sentenced to five months in prison (probably in a federal minimum security women's facility, which, granted, won't exactly be Alcatraz), as well as two years' probation. She was also ordered to pay a $30,000 fine.

I think this sentence is absolutely ridiculous. There is no need to send nonviolent, white-collar criminals to prison. Imagine how much money is spent housing, feeding, and "rehabilitating" the "prisoners" wherever Martha ends up. She (and criminals like her) should be sentenced to much heavier fines (hit 'em where it hurts!) and lengthy community service terms--say, a year or two working with the homeless in New York City. Let Martha see what the greed and graft of those who consider themselves "above the law" contributes to in our society.

Same thing with Kenneth Lay. I don't really feel that I need to be protected from Kenneth Lay. I doubt he's going to hold up the quickie mart around the corner or mug little old ladies. Instead, he should be fined a very hefty chunk of the fortune he made by cheating his employees and stockholders and be sentenced to work in the state unemployment office for a couple of years, or in a soup kitchen serving the homeless and the working poor. A few months in a minimum-security resort will do NOTHING for these people. Let's put them to work--FREE OF CHARGE to the taxpayers!

 

[Mrs. Edge]

Lol! I thought you were refering to Interference Martha!

I agree, she needs to be fined waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay more.

 

[BostonAnne]

You are so right paxetaurora!

 

[Doozer61]

Lol! I thought you were refering to Interference Martha!

me too

 

[melon]

Well, really, all of this depends on whether one believes that prison is for punishment or rehabilitation, as well as whether or not white-collar crime is as detrimental to society as the rest of crime. Personally, I think the reason that we are often more sympathetic to high-profile criminals is because we have a face to the name. Most other criminals get put in an orange jump suit and get led into the courtroom with a dumb look on their faces. Forgetting the evidence or not, who looks more guilty? The disheveled unnamed defendant on the local news or an impeccably dressed and well-mannered Martha Stewart?

One could probably make a similar argument for O.J. Simpson. If O.J. Simpson had been found guilty of murder in the criminal trial, it is also doubtful as to whether he truly would have posed a future threat to society. And if he is guilty, regardless of the verdict, that's proved to be true, as Simpson has not killed other people since.

I think that in the case of Martha Stewart, five months in prison is sufficient justice. It isn't a long time, and I think she will learn her lesson within that span of time. It's too bad that Bush didn't get five months in prison for insider trading with Harkon back in the early 1990s, but that's a whole other thread. Since the O.J. trial, there is a lot more pressure to punish celebrity criminals, as it is believed that they commonly get off easy, in comparison to average people.

But putting people to work is a good idea, along with a substantial fines, but laws will have to be changed to allow, and we have to make sure that non-high profile criminals who get charged with the same crimes are allowed to get the same kind of sentences.

Melon

 

[pax]

Oh, I agree. I think in cases of most nonviolent criminals, there's no need to imprison them. I say "most" because I'm sure there are a few who should go away, but to me, people should be put in prison only if they pose a danger to society. Otherwise, put them to work and possibly fine them, particularly if they've made a lot of money from their crime(s).

This goes for your garden-variety, non-famous insider trader or what have you, not just Martha Stewart.

 

[DaveC]

Martha got the maximum fine and the minimum prison sentence by law.

I'm glad, it sends a message to the powerful people that they aren't above the law...for the most part.

 

[Screaming Flower]

now let's see if they get the bigger fish, i.e. ken lay, bernie ebbers.

 

[forbonou2]

You do have an idea there pax!

 

[Bono's shades]

I don't feel the least bit sorry that Martha Stewart is going to prison, but like Screaming Flower said there are other white-collar criminals guilty of even worse crimes that need to serve even longer sentences.

 

[nbcrusader]

Considering the breadth of potential harm caused by white collar criminals, imposing prison sentences does not seem unreasonable.

As a deterrent, the threat of prison is what gets the attention of the average white collar worker.

 

[pax]

I don't know. I think the prospect of a big fat fine is much scarier to someone like Martha Stewart than a few months in a minimum security resort.

Now if we're talking a "pound me in the ass" prison...one where there are no conjugal visits, say... ...well, sure, that would be scary. But no one would go for that, putting Martha Stewart in with the serial killers and child molesters. Come on.

 

[nbcrusader]

I don't know. I think the prospect of a big fat fine is much scarier to someone like Martha Stewart than a few months in a minimum security resort.

Now if we're talking a "pound me in the ass" prison...one where there are no conjugal visits, say... ...well, sure, that would be scary. But no one would go for that, putting Martha Stewart in with the serial killers and child molesters. Come on.

It has been my experience from advising the white collar worker that threat of prison definitely gets their attention, whether is be the "country club" variety, or the "you're my bitch" variety. I see this today with the implementation of the Sarbanes-Oxley regulations.

Fines rarely exceed the amount an individual can readily pay. No white-collar criminal ends up homeless because of a fine (they may lose that beach house in the Hamptons, however).

 

[pax]

Well, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.