new thread
It is pissing me off that the liberal media thought she got to light of a sentence. She only got 10 months 5 in jail and 5 at home for insider trading.
If I were the judge she would have been sent to a max security prison, no protective custody for corrupt Ceo's so she has to fend for herself against other inmates. They do not like rich people in jail or prison, believe me I have been there. Rich Ceo's that exploit poor people should get life in prison in the worst federal pen out there.
Sorry for my rant, but what white collar criminals do and get away with is maddening. I'm not usually for harsh sentaces, but these people steal millions and only get 5 Months? If I did that I would get at least 10 to 20 years in prison, but just cuz she is Martha Stewart she gets special privalges even as a inmate. She should get all her money tooken away from her and have to live on 40 cents a day making liscence plates for the rest of her life.
Michigan Larceny Sentencing guidlines
under 200 misdeamnor up to 6 months in jail
over 200 but less than 100 High Court Misdeamonor up to 1 yr in jail.
over thousand but less than 20000 up to 5 yrs in prison
over 20000 but less than 100000 would be up to 10 years in prison
over 100000 but less than 500000 is up to 20 years.
Why didn't martha stewart get sentenced to even a 1/8 of these guidlines seeings how federal guidlines are more serious and harsher
Martha Stuart was not charged with fraud and the issue trialed had nothing to do with her company. It regarded a private transaction of her personal investments. She made $50,000 on the transaction; the government does not usually go after someone unless the number is well over $100,000. Ken Lay will probably fare much better and he (Enron) is responsible for millions of people loosing millions of dollars.
I would have give her the stiffest sentence out there. 4 consecutive 5 year sentences being elible for parole once she complete 95 percent of her 4th sentence.
Now she can develop her own grool recipes. :P
Why is it pissing you off that the media (much of the mainstream media today is clearly not liberal so it would help to define the sources you are criticising) thinks she got off easy when you yourself said you would have thrown the book at her? (was that a typo?)
Maybe she will have at least a little time to reflect on the bad short hairstyle that got her there as part of her prim and proper world and consider growing it long so she won't look like the typical executive woman who is trying to fit in with her male peers. You would think that a woman who seems to be trying to make all the little details perfect in her programs would pay as much attention to her hair too.
Have you noticed that there isn't much long hair involved with her story be it women or men? Kinda spooooky!
I agree that the US media is mostly not liberal. Still, if you are to the right of Genghis Khan then it probably looks liberal.
I don't agree that Martha should have had the book thrown at her. Sure, I don't like her or her hairstyle, and she has way too much money, but none of that is any reason to persecute her.
It turns out that what she originally didn't wasn't illegal, but she thought it was, and she is being jailed for the cover-up. I don't think that anyone should be jailed for covering up a non-crime, even if the courts can do that (AFAIK she is being jailed for perjury, but how can anything she concealed or said be material evidence if it wasn't related to a crime?). If, OTOH, you think her dealing should have been a crime, then you should try to get the law changed.
Picture Purged
5 months? if I would steal a tiny fraction of what she stole I would have gotten much more than that.
Remember the Enron executives who got no more than 8 or 10 years for a multi-billion fraud and (in the case of some of them) have been able to keep their million-dollar homes in Florida.
A Linux Longhair
