Monday, March 08, 2004
Martha, redux...
Go read Dawn's take on the Martha Stewart thing.
I expected her to be acquitted all along, and I'm stunned that she wasn't. But I'm not sure I agree with this whole "she should never have been tried" argument lots of folks are making. (they range from folks like Dawn to NRO Troglodyte John Derbyshire.) The fact of the matter is, she broke the law. She was charged with some serious stuff, that got tossed mid-trial, but the fact is, she did break the laws she was charged with. (At least, a jury so found. I don't criticize jury verdicts that go against me personally, I ain't criticizing this one.)
She was offered a plea bargain. She turned it down. (I don't know what the details were. Ideally - she probably should have been offered probation in exchange for testimony against Bogdanovich - the broker is the part of the system, and the real bad guy here.) With that in mind, how can a U.S. Attorney just walk away from the charges entirely without having everyone believe the famous person got a break? "Look - we think she broke some laws. But, hey, haven't we all? It's just not worth the effort to prosecute. I mean, come on, you're gonna tell me you didn't exceed the posted speed limit, just a little, while driving home today? Then who are you to judge?"
To use the speeding analogy - there's one cop on the Interstate with one laser. He can't possibly pull over every single speeder. Should he turn his back on the ones he can get? Sure, Stewart ain't the only one who's lied, but so what? She's the one we got, and it is against the law. Should we effectively pretend she didn't just to avoid being accused of being out to get her?
Sure, Martha Stewart was probably trapped by fame - she couldn't tender a plea bargain without damaging her very public reputation, the way some no-name securities trader could. And sure, she was investigated for insider trading, and the government decided not to pursue those charges. But they did believe she broke the law - and I'm not comfortable with the idea that we had a moral obligation to pretend she didn't.
As for her sentence - as I understand the federal guidelines, she's probably looking at 10-15 months. To not get any jail time would be a huge departure. Also, Dawn mentions Stewart needs to do some serious begging. I wouldn't bet on seeing anything resembling contrition from Stewart any time soon.
Go read Dawn's take on the Martha Stewart thing.
I expected her to be acquitted all along, and I'm stunned that she wasn't. But I'm not sure I agree with this whole "she should never have been tried" argument lots of folks are making. (they range from folks like Dawn to NRO Troglodyte John Derbyshire.) The fact of the matter is, she broke the law. She was charged with some serious stuff, that got tossed mid-trial, but the fact is, she did break the laws she was charged with. (At least, a jury so found. I don't criticize jury verdicts that go against me personally, I ain't criticizing this one.)
She was offered a plea bargain. She turned it down. (I don't know what the details were. Ideally - she probably should have been offered probation in exchange for testimony against Bogdanovich - the broker is the part of the system, and the real bad guy here.) With that in mind, how can a U.S. Attorney just walk away from the charges entirely without having everyone believe the famous person got a break? "Look - we think she broke some laws. But, hey, haven't we all? It's just not worth the effort to prosecute. I mean, come on, you're gonna tell me you didn't exceed the posted speed limit, just a little, while driving home today? Then who are you to judge?"
To use the speeding analogy - there's one cop on the Interstate with one laser. He can't possibly pull over every single speeder. Should he turn his back on the ones he can get? Sure, Stewart ain't the only one who's lied, but so what? She's the one we got, and it is against the law. Should we effectively pretend she didn't just to avoid being accused of being out to get her?
Sure, Martha Stewart was probably trapped by fame - she couldn't tender a plea bargain without damaging her very public reputation, the way some no-name securities trader could. And sure, she was investigated for insider trading, and the government decided not to pursue those charges. But they did believe she broke the law - and I'm not comfortable with the idea that we had a moral obligation to pretend she didn't.
As for her sentence - as I understand the federal guidelines, she's probably looking at 10-15 months. To not get any jail time would be a huge departure. Also, Dawn mentions Stewart needs to do some serious begging. I wouldn't bet on seeing anything resembling contrition from Stewart any time soon.
