|
Martha Stewart was an example of the American Dream; virtually a rags-to-riches story, raising homemaking to a fine art. But now, her character and empire are destroyed. It is estimated that she lost more than $300 million of her legitimately built net worth. Why? She was essentially accused of lying to federal investigators about a stock trade, not insider trading (which can be likened to grand theft of the uninformed stock buyer’s money, a much more serious evil). It appears as if the feds lacked evidence of that. Linda Stasi of the New York Post noted that there’s “a world of difference between Martha and the CEOs who raped their own companies.” Stasi explained, “The difference between her and them? She lied, they stole.” Indeed, Investor’s Business Daily pointed out that Stewart was hardly an “insider” and that she simply “sold her shares on her broker’s advice” – and did so after the stock in question had started its decline. “The record shows Martha is guilty of nothing so much as selling stock that was on the way down,” commented the paper. “If that’s a crime, then we’re all guilty.”
So it appears that Martha’s Show Trial demonstrated that “we’re all guilty.” Given the prolific amount of laws, regulations, and bureaucratic decrees, most likely everyone is guilty of some offense against the government. This seems to be the central purpose of the Martha Stewart Show Trial.
Federal statutes created by Congress do make lying to a federal investigator a crime. However, even if Stewart did lie, it is a first offense. Does society attain a great benefit from her financial losses and emotional distress and the troubles faced by Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia and all its stock holders and employees whose jobs she created? Were the feds justified in spending millions of taxpayer dollars to prosecute her? According to Time magazine, prosecutors crowed that they were “sending a message to other CEOs.” Hey, what’s WRONG with this picture?!!!
Admittedly, a federal investigator should have the right to truthful answers. However, here, the investigator’s job was to doubt and verify. It was not to simply rely upon Martha. An investigator must verify and re-verify, again and again. Thus, the harm was relatively small. However, there should be some punishment for misleading government officials.
But is Martha really being condemned for an uncharged crime that could not be proven — insider trading? If so, inflating the issue of lying and charging that instead is suspect. Ironically, the government allows repeat violent offenders to walk despite parole violations and then kidnap and murder the innocent, such as in the tragic case of 11-year-old Carlie Brucia, whose recent abduction was captured on videotape. Our government has been delegated powers by consent of The People via the Constitution, in order to protect law-abiding people from the lawless. However, many governments, such as in Castro’s Cuba, misuse police power to break the will of their subjects more often than to protect their rights.
Martha will be sentenced in June. As a convicted felon, she will be given the opportunity to address the Court. Now, should she apologize to the Court before being sentenced? We are told by talking heads that if she does, the judge may impose a lesser sentence than if she shows “no remorse for the crime.” This is probably true.
However, if one follows logic, a person who pleads “not guilty” is in one of two categories: (1) it’s a guilty person who is legally lying to the government, or (2) the person is innocent.
If an innocent person is found guilty, the “truth” has been found “beyond a reasonable doubt.” However, there is no doubt as to the possibility that the jury is wrong. There are many examples of convicts later found innocent, especially with the innovation of DNA testing.
The idea that a defendant must show remorse or admit to a crime comes from the irrational and barbaric ancient method of “trial by ordeal.” During the Inquisition, any person could accuse another of heresy. An Inquisitor would then be called to investigate the matter and would presume that the accused was guilty. The accused would then be sent to a torturer and shown the abhorrent instruments of torture and offered a choice. Confess now or be tortured to death. Usually, if the accused immediately confessed, he or she would suffer a merciful death, or even a relatively minor punishment such as banishment or a short prison term. However, most accused persons were constrained by their faith in God that they would suffer eternal damnation if they lied by confessing to something that they did not do. So, many suffered horrific torture and death.
Similarly, in Salem, if accused of being a witch, you would be “pressed” with weights until you confessed or were crushed to death, or hanged or burned at the stake. However, immediate confessions often elicited less severe punishment.
Today, we know that juries can be wrong and defendants can be innocent. Thus, there is no logic in reducing punishment if the innocent but wrongfully convicted defendant admits to the crime at sentencing and feigns remorse. If you are innocent, you are innocent, despite the jury’s verdict. A jury trial is merely the least worse way of finding the actual truth, but it is not an infallible one. Therefore, the Court should remove potentially false confession and phony remorse from consideration when sentencing Martha (and others).
Will Martha suffer the World’s A-List sins … as the sacrificial Lamb with Thyme served? If it can happen to Martha Stewart, it can happen to YOU!!
Enjoy The Sheet.
Written by Joan Jedell in collaboration with David Jedell, Attorney at Law
Joan Jedell appears on national and local tv and radio.
Her photographs are syndicated worldwide.
|
