Recentely, Martha Steward has put out a personal plea to all her friends to write the judge in charge of her case with references in terms of her character, practices, person.
The Daily Farce (satyrical online news) has done an interesting article on it. The following quote is an excerpt...
"No one responded to my request." Stated Martha Stewart, visibly angry, "Are they so busy in their life? Those bastards will pay for this! I promise you! I don't understand! I'm nice. I'm ethical. I treat people fairly. Just wait. They will pay for this! Mark my words! They think I'm mean now? Wait until I get out of prison!"
My thought on it, without jumping on the send Martha to jail bandwagon, when you have many millions (billions?) of dollars and you take part in a "shady" deal that saves you about 80 thousands of dollars, what does that say about your character?
My wife is asking..."Why, Martha, why?"
Posted by edTwo thoughts on the matter:
1. Is she really guilty or did Martha attorney goof up
2. Is the justice system using a sledge hammer when a slap on the wrist would do? (Making an example of Martha)
I don't think if she wasn't guilty she would be here, we're talking a net worth of billions $. People with that kind of cash don't go to jail if they're not guilty.
If the average person did the same thing what would happen? I think it shouldn't be any more than the regular person, it certainly shouldn't be less just because of who she is.
my thoughts...
Posted by: edyou're absolutely correct, the million/billionares shouldn't be treated any differently then anyonelse.
the question is .. why would anyone worth millions/billions try a shady deal that only saves $80,000 .. does it say bad character (when you're worth so much 80,000 can make for a good capital loss deduction on the income tax) or bad lawyer (for gambling on not putting her on the stand)
just being found guilty, doesn't necessarily mean she is guilty. convicted killers have been set free because of mistakes (DNA evidence that proves the innocence for example). can we not say politics does not enter the justice system ..
Anyway, if she did it, she deserves to pay like everyone else...that's my only point, which we've already agreed on.
In terms of is it likely that she could, would do it? I don't know, I don't know her.
Ultimately the evidence, of what I know about it seems to say she was aware.
At the end of the day, we don't, won't know unless some evidence comes up to prove things different.
I hate it when injustice is done. But I also hate it when rich people get involved in stupid, shady deals, that it doesn't make any sense for them to be involved in, but they do because they think they're above the law. She certainly wouldn't be the first, if she did do it.
There's always people on both sides of the opinion. I guess we're on different sides on this one. I don't want her to do time is she's not guilty, no way. But if she is, there's consequences, even if it doesn't make sense to someone like me, why someone like she would do something like that.
Posted by: ed
She was offered a deal way back when, if she would plead guilty. She chose not to take it. She was found guilty. Looks like a classic case of greed. She should go to jail just like anyone else.
Posted by: GeorgeGeorge, you're a harsh man :) Black and white all the way. Playing devil's advocate for a second, if you were innocent of a crime, would you take a plea and plead guilty?
Posted by: edI would like to take a moment to put my final comments on the matter (not for argument, but for getting them off my chest .. thanks Ed)
Having read what I have read, heard what I've heard, I don't know if Martha is guilty or not (hasn't been proven to me either way)
I do think Martha is guilty of choosing bad lawyers. The lawyers believed the prosecution's case was so circumstancial that they chose not mount a strong defence (chose to bring only "one" witness to Martha's defence and advised Martha not to take the stand (for an assortment of reasons)). The lawyers strategy failed, meaning they did not do their job to defend her (if she is innocent).
When we are not the subject matter experts we tend to defer to those who are. I would like, (like I have a say), to see Martha file for an appeal with different lawyers .. found guilty again .. lock her up .. found innocent .. leave her alone.
It is interesting to see how the rich and famous are treated .. sometimes it works in their favour (Messier gets only 2 games for spearing while a lesser known player gets 6 plus 2 playoff games for a similar stick infraction) and sometimes it doesn't (Bertuzzi gets the season +). I have heard it said that the famous have to be better than the rest of us because they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
.. sorry .. minor correction to my last statement ..
I have heard it said that the famous have it better than the rest of us but the prices is that they are held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
.. better .. I think '-)
I didn't know this post would generate so much conversation. Conversation is good! That's why I like blogging, we'd never have talked about this otherwise, and it's good to talk...
I think we agree on lots of stuff, none of us wants her or anyone in jail, who doesn't deserve to be there. The system says she can appeal, more power to her, seriously. I don't buy the bad lawyer scenario, but eh, I could be wrong. A person with her resources and connections get a bad lawyer??? I'm not so sure, I think there's reasons for the suggestions the lawyer made, but again, that's my opinion, what do I know??? I'll leave it at that, in the end, regardless of what I think, I'd like to see justice done, and if indeed this lawyer is a bumbling idiot, then she should, as she is, appeal and if she's innocent, I really hope she gets off and is cleared. Although stuff like this stays with you, even if you are innocent. If she is, I'm sorry, she's going through this. Like you mentioned before, people have ended up in jail, who didn't deserve to be there.
In terms of the hockey stuff, you're so right on. Couldn't agree more. What's with that?
In terms of the rich and famous and how they're treated, I think most of the time it works in their favour. Honestly, I'm sick of seeing court cases where rich people are cleared for stuff that you and I would be in jail in a second, because we couldn't afford the lawyers they can, often lawyers that play the system, so that it doesn't matter whether they're guilty or not, it often becomes about how much they can pay.
I don't have anything against rich people, I have a problem with a system that is not fair to all regardless of status or race etc... I also have a problem with a system that doesn't rehabilitate...if she's guilty, so what if she goes to jail? Will it make her a better person? Will it help her make a better decision the next time? Maybe, maybe not and that bothers me even more than anything else, the system doesn't work.
But that's a whole other issue...anyway bud, it's been good to converse. And I do hope Martha gets justice. I really, really, don't want her to pay for something she didn't do. Regardless of how I weigh the evidence personally. I'm not judge or jury.
Posted by: edEd, I would never plead guilty if I was innocent.
You know what I would do though, (and she didn't)I would take the stand to defend myself and proclaim my innocence. I know the burden of proof is always on the prosecution and the accused never has to take the stand, however, if I am the accused and know I'm innocent I'm definitely taking the stand. Especially as a Christian - I'll go with the "truth will set you free" principle.
An innocent person will always have the "ring of truth" and it will be apparent to judge or jury. Thank God our justice system still has that integrity.