| Topic: |
Sociology > Depression |
| User: |
"alvintchase" |
| Date: |
05 Mar 2004 03:24:45 PM |
| Object: |
Martha was found guilty |
I'm suprised they found Martha Stewart guilty...I had a feeling she
would be aquitted.I'm not by any means a fan of hers,but I hope she
doesn't get much jail time.Maybe she'll win the appeal?
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 05:27:00 PM |
|
|
On 5 Mar 2004 13:24:45 -0800, (alvintchase)
wrote:
I'm suprised they found Martha Stewart guilty...I had a feeling she
would be aquitted.I'm not by any means a fan of hers,but I hope she
doesn't get much jail time.Maybe she'll win the appeal?
It's about time this rich ***** gets what she has coming. I hope she
gets the full 20 years, and highest fine possible. These rich people
think they are above the law, and it's about time they get the same
justice as those less fortunate.
Goodbye Martha, you WILL NOT be missed, and your sucky tv show will
hopefully be replaced with something enjoyable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "diana lyster" |
|
| Title: [martha undaunted by guilty verdict] |
05 Mar 2004 11:00:54 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<du2i405g4a9176ohnbpsduqn6ajr6thc45@4ax.com>...
On 5 Mar 2004 13:24:45 -0800, (alvintchase)
wrote:
I'm suprised they found Martha Stewart guilty...I had a feeling she
would be aquitted.I'm not by any means a fan of hers,but I hope she
doesn't get much jail time.Maybe she'll win the appeal?
It's about time this rich ***** gets what she has coming. I hope she
gets the full 20 years, and highest fine possible. These rich people
think they are above the law, and it's about time they get the same
justice as those less fortunate.
Goodbye Martha, you WILL NOT be missed, and your sucky tv show will
hopefully be replaced with something enjoyable.
i saw one of the jurors on television. it sounded to me like she had
a fair and honest jury, and that she was really guilty. it is
disgusting when someone that rich is basically stealing from other
investors who have far less than she does.
martha, however, remains arrogant and undaunted. of the guilty
verdict, she wrote, "i will appeal the verdict and continue to fight
to clear my name. i believe in the fairness of the judicial system and
remain confident that i will ultimately prevail."
maybe she'll wake up when she hears that cell door slam shut.
diana
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "abdul rahim" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 09:51:14 PM |
|
|
why post news of her verdict to ASD? who is depressed besides martha?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jamal Chapultapec" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 10:14:48 PM |
|
|
(abdul rahim) wrote in
news:c7c4f07f.0403051951.34ee0023@posting.google.com:
why post news of her verdict to ASD? who is depressed besides martha?
It depresses me to see how shitty the US Justice System is.
Enron? Worldcom?
Thousands of employees screwed out of their livelihoods. The punishment to
the perpetrators?
A slap on the wrist.
But Martha they nail to the wall.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "wombn" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 10:17:53 PM |
|
|
On 5 Mar 2004 19:51:14 -0800, (abdul
rahim) wrote:
why post news of her verdict to ASD? who is depressed besides martha?
cuz we talk about more than depression here. Nothing is OT here.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If laughter is the best medicine,
then kittens should be covered by our health insurance. :-)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "son of the yellow river" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 08:02:20 AM |
|
|
good.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Naomi Darvell" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 03:39:19 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
alvintchase wrote:
I'm suprised they found Martha Stewart guilty...I had a feeling she
would be aquitted.I'm not by any means a fan of hers,but I hope she
doesn't get much jail time.Maybe she'll win the appeal?
I doubt it.
I'm with you; I'm not a fan, but I don't think it's productive to put people on
that level of an insider scheme away. Let 'em pay a big fine, and save the
government the cost of housing them.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gayle" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 04:27:54 PM |
|
|
http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/graphics/
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "John" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 04:35:27 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Naomi Darvell" <darvell349@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040305163919.18203.00000844@mb-m06.aol.com...
x-no-archive: yes
alvintchase wrote:
I'm suprised they found Martha Stewart guilty...I had a feeling she
would be aquitted.I'm not by any means a fan of hers,but I hope she
doesn't get much jail time.Maybe she'll win the appeal?
I doubt it.
I'm with you; I'm not a fan, but I don't think it's productive to put
people on
that level of an insider scheme away. Let 'em pay a big fine, and save the
government the cost of housing them.
Ditto.
Though, as I recall, it really wasn't an insider trading violation. I think
the problem was that she got afraid that she had done something wrong, and
so lied to the authorities about what she had done, and eventually got
caught in the lies.
Fear can really screw you up.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Naomi Darvell" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 05:09:25 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
John wrote:
Ditto.
Though, as I recall, it really wasn't an insider trading violation. I think
the problem was that she got afraid that she had done something wrong, and
so lied to the authorities about what she had done, and eventually got
caught in the lies.
Fear can really screw you up.
Yes, right.
There was a very good piece in Slate near the beginning of the trial suggecting
(plausibly IMO) that the sheer incompetence of her coverup suggests she wasn't
setting out deliberately setting out to do something criminal or she would have
been better prepared to cover her *****.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nina" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 05:28:04 PM |
|
|
On 05 Mar 2004 23:09:25 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
John wrote:
Ditto.
Though, as I recall, it really wasn't an insider trading violation. I think
the problem was that she got afraid that she had done something wrong, and
so lied to the authorities about what she had done, and eventually got
caught in the lies.
Fear can really screw you up.
Yes, right.
There was a very good piece in Slate near the beginning of the trial suggecting
(plausibly IMO) that the sheer incompetence of her coverup suggests she wasn't
setting out deliberately setting out to do something criminal or she would have
been better prepared to cover her *****.
As far as I can tell, that's what her lawyer argued in the trial, too.
I don't buy it for a second, though. The "we're too smart for this"
defense.
Nina
.
|
|
|
| User: "Naomi Darvell" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 05:43:25 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Nina wrote:
As far as I can tell, that's what her lawyer argued in the trial, too.
I don't buy it for a second, though. The "we're too smart for this"
defense.
I feel as if I believe it, although I can't tell you why.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nina" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 06:51:35 PM |
|
|
On 05 Mar 2004 23:43:25 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:
x-no-archive: yes
Nina wrote:
As far as I can tell, that's what her lawyer argued in the trial, too.
I don't buy it for a second, though. The "we're too smart for this"
defense.
I feel as if I believe it, although I can't tell you why.
Well, I believe that she lied to the government deliberately, if not,
perhaps, with premeditation. I don't know about the rest of it; I
have no idea if there really was a sell order, or anything about the
insider trading part. But I think that she got scared and then did
some really stupid things. So that she's probably guilty of.
But, of course, what is the appropriate punishment for being scared
and silly and dumb enough to put the feds in a position where they
pretty much have to prosecute?
Nina
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 01:33:57 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Nina" <ninaNOSPAM@economika.net> wrote:
Well, I believe that she lied to the government deliberately, if not,
perhaps, with premeditation. I don't know about the rest of it; I
have no idea if there really was a sell order, or anything about the
insider trading part. But I think that she got scared and then did
some really stupid things. So that she's probably guilty of.
But, of course, what is the appropriate punishment for being scared
and silly and dumb enough to put the feds in a position where they
pretty much have to prosecute?
The German law system works very differently.
In Germany, a defendant legally may lie to
investigators and at court. "We couldn't prove
that you stole the three eggs, but you'll get
five years because you lied about where you
were at January 3, 1997". Nah.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 03:09:39 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 6 Mar 2004 08:33:57 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"Nina" <ninaNOSPAM@economika.net> wrote:
Well, I believe that she lied to the government deliberately, if not,
perhaps, with premeditation. I don't know about the rest of it; I
have no idea if there really was a sell order, or anything about the
insider trading part. But I think that she got scared and then did
some really stupid things. So that she's probably guilty of.
But, of course, what is the appropriate punishment for being scared
and silly and dumb enough to put the feds in a position where they
pretty much have to prosecute?
The German law system works very differently.
In Germany, a defendant legally may lie to
investigators and at court. "We couldn't prove
that you stole the three eggs, but you'll get
five years because you lied about where you
were at January 3, 1997". Nah.
The concept of perjury doesn't apply to testimony by a defendant in
criminal court in America either. Obstruction of justice is a different
concept.
---
BAROMETER, n. An ingenious instrument which indicates what kind of
weather we are having.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Naomi Darvell" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 07:01:01 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Nina wrote:
Well, I believe that she lied to the government deliberately, if not,
perhaps, with premeditation. I don't know about the rest of it; I
have no idea if there really was a sell order, or anything about the
insider trading part. But I think that she got scared and then did
some really stupid things. So that she's probably guilty of.
But, of course, what is the appropriate punishment for being scared
and silly and dumb enough to put the feds in a position where they
pretty much have to prosecute?
Nina
I don't know. I like the idea of a big fine, on the scale of both being
deterrent and paying back the cost of the whole mess.
I suppose it's discriminatory to say, keep the high earners out there making
money and paying back, inasmuch as it entails the idea that if you're too poor
to pay a big fine your ***** goes to jail. But it seems logical, when the crime
was nonviolent and financially motivated, to make people pay with money.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nina" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 07:13:52 PM |
|
|
On 06 Mar 2004 01:01:01 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:
I don't know. I like the idea of a big fine, on the scale of both being
deterrent and paying back the cost of the whole mess.
I suppose it's discriminatory to say, keep the high earners out there making
money and paying back, inasmuch as it entails the idea that if you're too poor
to pay a big fine your ***** goes to jail. But it seems logical, when the crime
was nonviolent and financially motivated, to make people pay with money.
I don't disagree with that. But it's hard to both be fair and have a
deterrent effect, because equity... choosing a fine that would be fair
to everyone... wouldn't mean much if you have Martha's money. Or you
could choose a fine just for her (or whomever), but there are fairness
issues there. So it's hard to put into practice in a meaningful way,
I think.
She'll serve minimal jail time if any, regardless. The interesting
thing is that, as a convicted felon, she can no longer be CEO of her
own corporation, as long as it's publicly held.
Nina
.
|
|
|
| User: "Janithor" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 03:32:44 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Nina wrote:
On 06 Mar 2004 01:01:01 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:
I don't know. I like the idea of a big fine, on the scale of both being
deterrent and paying back the cost of the whole mess.
I suppose it's discriminatory to say, keep the high earners out there making
money and paying back, inasmuch as it entails the idea that if you're too poor
to pay a big fine your ***** goes to jail. But it seems logical, when the crime
was nonviolent and financially motivated, to make people pay with money.
I don't disagree with that. But it's hard to both be fair and have a
deterrent effect, because equity... choosing a fine that would be fair
to everyone... wouldn't mean much if you have Martha's money. Or you
could choose a fine just for her (or whomever), but there are fairness
issues there. So it's hard to put into practice in a meaningful way,
I think.
She'll serve minimal jail time if any, regardless. The interesting
thing is that, as a convicted felon, she can no longer be CEO of her
own corporation, as long as it's publicly held.
Nina
Is there an economic logic to putting non-violent offenders in jail? I
never understood this. Seems the best thing to do is make non-violent
people pay for there crimes, either money or service or some combination
of the 2. Personally, I want jails available to keep monsters off the
street - people who will physically hurt me or my family or some little
kid like that girl in Florida.
.
|
|
|
| User: "% surfs@uniserve" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 04:54:05 AM |
|
|
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:40499ABB.2030005@comcast.net...
x-no-archive: yes
Nina wrote:
On 06 Mar 2004 01:01:01 GMT, (Naomi Darvell) wrote:
I don't know. I like the idea of a big fine, on the scale of both being
deterrent and paying back the cost of the whole mess.
I suppose it's discriminatory to say, keep the high earners out there
making
money and paying back, inasmuch as it entails the idea that if you're
too poor
to pay a big fine your ***** goes to jail. But it seems logical, when the
crime
was nonviolent and financially motivated, to make people pay with money.
I don't disagree with that. But it's hard to both be fair and have a
deterrent effect, because equity... choosing a fine that would be fair
to everyone... wouldn't mean much if you have Martha's money. Or you
could choose a fine just for her (or whomever), but there are fairness
issues there. So it's hard to put into practice in a meaningful way,
I think.
She'll serve minimal jail time if any, regardless. The interesting
thing is that, as a convicted felon, she can no longer be CEO of her
own corporation, as long as it's publicly held.
Nina
Is there an economic logic to putting non-violent offenders in jail? I
never understood this. Seems the best thing to do is make non-violent
people pay for there crimes, either money or service or some combination
of the 2. Personally, I want jails available to keep monsters off the
street - people who will physically hurt me or my family or some little
kid like that girl in Florida.
maybe she was just being a jerk
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nina" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 06:17:27 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 06 Mar 2004 09:32:44 GMT, Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net>
wrote:
Is there an economic logic to putting non-violent offenders in jail? I
never understood this. Seems the best thing to do is make non-violent
people pay for there crimes, either money or service or some combination
of the 2. Personally, I want jails available to keep monsters off the
street - people who will physically hurt me or my family or some little
kid like that girl in Florida.
I don't know all that much about law and economics... I testify
occasionally in loss-of-earnings cases, but there's a whole literature
on appropriate punishment. I agree with you, but I think that the
issue is about deterrent effect of jail time... not that any of the
evidence on punishment as a deterrent to anything is very clear.
And, as I said before, I think that it's hard to use fines in a way
that is both fair across the board and a real deterrent.
Nina
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 06:06:12 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Janithor" <Janithor@comcast.net> WROTE:
Is there an economic logic to putting non-violent offenders in jail?
There is, but not to the extent of having 2% of the population
behind bars (read: into professional criminal high school).
There are groups of non-violent offenders who
nevertheless are a danger to society, such as traitors and spies.
Prison time also prevents some offenders from enjoying
the revenue of their crime (think about some white-collar
crime where the criminal who redirected a few million
to his own accounts on the Cayman Islands, the Bahamas,
and in Luxemburg got caught before he could leave the country).
And there are a few crimes such as perjury (think about falsely
and publicly accusing somebody of a vicious crime) which have
low economic impact but might destroy some other
people's lifes.
OTOH, the main economic reason to put non-violent
offenders in prison is election campaign economics.
The US voters have a tendency to vote for
politicians who are "tough on crime". Presumably,
quite a few voters do not understand that putting
pet criminals into prison for a few years *increases*
crime.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 04:33:25 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"Naomi Darvell" <darvell349@aol.com> wrote:
alvintchase wrote:
I'm suprised they found Martha Stewart guilty...I had a feeling she
would be aquitted.I'm not by any means a fan of hers,but I hope she
doesn't get much jail time.Maybe she'll win the appeal?
I doubt it.
I'm with you; I'm not a fan, but I don't think it's productive to put people on
that level of an insider scheme away.
The Martha Stewart trial was not about insider trading,
but about conspiracy, making false statements,
obstruction of justice, perjury etc. Strange as it
may seem, the insider trading investigation itself
has not even completed at this point.
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
06 Mar 2004 03:06:04 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:33:25 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
The Martha Stewart trial was not about insider trading,
but about conspiracy, making false statements,
obstruction of justice, perjury etc. Strange as it
may seem, the insider trading investigation itself
has not even completed at this point.
Conspiracy, making false statements, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc,
didn't seem to matter when it came to Bill Clinton.
---
MONDAY, n. In Christian countries, the day after the baseball game.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
| User: "Thomas Dehn" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
07 Mar 2004 03:15:41 AM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@anonymous.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:33:25 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
The Martha Stewart trial was not about insider trading,
but about conspiracy, making false statements,
obstruction of justice, perjury etc. Strange as it
may seem, the insider trading investigation itself
has not even completed at this point.
Conspiracy, making false statements, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc,
didn't seem to matter when it came to Bill Clinton.
Don't ask me, I never understood what that was
about. Did they really expect Clinton to give correct
and detailed information how he cheated on his wife?
Or was this just mudslinging?
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "CyberDroog" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
07 Mar 2004 02:37:35 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 7 Mar 2004 10:15:41 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@anonymous.net> wrote:
On Fri, 5 Mar 2004 23:33:25 +0100, "Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de>
wrote:
The Martha Stewart trial was not about insider trading,
but about conspiracy, making false statements,
obstruction of justice, perjury etc. Strange as it
may seem, the insider trading investigation itself
has not even completed at this point.
Conspiracy, making false statements, obstruction of justice, perjury, etc,
didn't seem to matter when it came to Bill Clinton.
Don't ask me, I never understood what that was
about. Did they really expect Clinton to give correct
and detailed information how he cheated on his wife?
Or was this just mudslinging?
It was about a civil case involving an accusation of sexual harassment.
The whole Monica Lewinski thing came up because of the Paula Jones matter.
I thought it was odd that people reacted badly to that. Especially
feminists who, curiously, remained quiet. In most such cases feminists are
calling for crucifixion of any man even accused of sexual harassment.
So yes, they did expect him to give correct information. In American
courts the past sexual behavior of a man can be examined both in civil
matters and criminal matters. (Civil cases of sexual harassment, or a
divorce, and criminal sexual assaults.)
---
LABOR, n. One of the processes by which A acquires property for B.
- Ambrose Bierce
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nom dePlume nomdeplume1000-at-yahoo.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
07 Mar 2004 01:40:30 PM |
|
|
What it was about depended on who you asked, because different people
cared about wildly different things (hence all the argument). From my
perspective, the gap was between those who believed in the rule of
law, versus those who considered the laws to be "guidelines," rather
than enforceable rules backed up by penalties.
--
Nom dePlume, Ph.D
Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist.
Guide to Medications for Mental Illness:
http://www.geocities.com/nomdeplume1000
=====
"Thomas Dehn" <thomas-usenet@arcor.de> wrote in message
news:c2es6p$1ss88s$1@ID-57266.news.uni-berlin.de...
x-no-archive: yes
Conspiracy, making false statements, obstruction of justice,
perjury, etc,
didn't seem to matter when it came to Bill Clinton.
Don't ask me, I never understood what that was
about. Did they really expect Clinton to give correct
and detailed information how he cheated on his wife?
Or was this just mudslinging?
Thomas
.
|
|
|
| User: "Naomi Darvell" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
07 Mar 2004 02:50:59 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
I thought today's article in the Times made some pretty good points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/business/07MART.html
Especially about it being more likely to be prosecuted for small stuff if you
are high-profile. Look at Winona Ryder.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nom dePlume nomdeplume1000-at-yahoo.com" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
07 Mar 2004 04:55:21 PM |
|
|
I don't have a subscription, so I can't read the link, but I agree.
Prosecutors like winning high-profile cases, and celebrities make good
targets.
--
Nom dePlume, Ph.D
Why, yes, in fact, I am a rocket scientist.
Guide to Medications for Mental Illness:
http://www.geocities.com/nomdeplume1000
=====
"Naomi Darvell" <darvell349@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040307155059.19340.00001028@mb-m16.aol.com...
x-no-archive: yes
I thought today's article in the Times made some pretty good points:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/07/business/07MART.html
Especially about it being more likely to be prosecuted for small
stuff if you
are high-profile. Look at Winona Ryder.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Naomi Darvell" |
|
| Title: Re: Martha was found guilty |
05 Mar 2004 05:07:23 PM |
|
|
x-no-archive: yes
Thomas Dehn wrote:
The Martha Stewart trial was not about insider trading,
but about conspiracy, making false statements,
obstruction of justice, perjury etc. Strange as it
may seem, the insider trading investigation itself
has not even completed at this point.
You're right. Sorry; I was typing absent-mindedly.
Naomi D.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
