NYT thinks Jail was not enough for Martha

[softwareNerd]

In this article, the New York Times sounds annoyed that Martha took jail in her stride.

It reminds me of the scene where Galt is being tortured. I think there are some in the liberal media who'd like to see Martha really suffer.

[Som Guy]

Well the article seems to feel she dosen't even belong in prison to begin with if you ask me. I honestly do have to agree with the article, prison sentences are used too often for things they shouldn't be, and when they are used the experience isn't harsh enough. It has always bothered me the efforts they go to to make prisoners feel better.

[the tortured one]

for anyone interested in the Martha Stewart case, get judge Andrew Napolitano's CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS, and on page 17 he gives a consis recollection of the Martha Stewart case. Martha didn't get convicted of insider trading, fraud, or perjury. She was sentanced for lying to a government agent who was interrogating her, the details of which are sketchy.

Her jailing was pure hatred, malice, and jealousy. I am not surprised the looters and moochers wish to extend her punishment.

[DavidOdden]

for anyone interested in the Martha Stewart case,  get judge Andrew Napolitano's CONSTITUTIONAL CHAOS, and on page 17 he gives a consis recollection of the Martha Stewart case.

I will be interested to see his analysis. What's interesting is that he also has an editorial denouncing the conviction of Lynne Stewart, the terrorist Abderrahman's attorney.

[TCEnglish]

"Her jailing was pure hatred, malice, and jealousy. I am not surprised the looters and moochers wish to extend her punishment."-The Tortured One

I agree...Martha Stewart is an exceedingly successful businesswoman, in my opinion, and the "liberal media," as quoted from this cite, has difficulty dealing with this.

Edited March 7, 2005 by TCEnglish

[Yes]

Now that Martha Stewart is "free" and out of prison, I'd like to see her make those who immorally incarcerated her be made accountable.

That bunch of thieves and looters should include her attorneys, for their disgraceful failure to properly and appropriately defend here.

Her "house arrest" is also unjustified. What kind of justice system is this that seeks to prod the producers about their success and their private lives and pursuit of happiness, and can also punish them for their right to protect their personal property?

[Cole]

She was sentanced for lying to a government agent who was interrogating her, the details of which are sketchy.

Was she even under oath at the time? Wouldn't it be necessary for her to have been under oath for it to be a crime?

I haven't looked into the case very deeply, but I'm not as misinformed on the whole thing as most people seem to be. I suspect that if you ask an average person on the street why Martha Stewart went to jail, he will tell you that she made an illegal stock trade and "hurt the little people."

[DavidOdden]

Was she even under oath at the time? Wouldn't it be necessary for her to have been under oath for it to be a crime?

No, there are two separate laws. One regards perjury where you lie under oath, in court. A very relevant consideration there is that in court, you are compelled to answer. Stewart (Martha, not Lynne) was convicted of messing with 1001, which just requires you to tell the truth, if you say anything to a federal agent. The difference is that you can't be compelled to talk to a federal agent: only a judge can force you to answer. So she (ostensibly) lied to the investigator, as opposed to exercising her right to say nothing.