Martha Stewart's sentance

[RedCeltic]

So, today they came out saying that Stewart will get five months of prison,five months of home detention, two years probation, and a $30,000 fine.

I'm curious to see what our cappie friends here think of this.

I'd also like to point out that while she was fined $30,000... today her stock went up and she made $60 million.... some fine eh? :lol:

[Capitalist Imperial]

A fair sentence considering this was a witch hunt against a great contributor to the American economy and culture.

[New Tolerance]

Noooo Martha!

Where am I going to get my ideas on [email protected]#!

[Stapler]

If anything, I think that it merely underlines the grotesque greed that exists in modern American society. Martha Stewart, a woman worth hundreds of millions risked a jail term and destruction of her carefully cultivated brand image for what? a few lousy million. Not only that, but she decided to 'steal' from a few people in the process. In addition, I think this will set a precedent for the punishment of future corporate criminals. Disgusting.

[Guerrilla22]

She should have gotten at least two years in jail, she knowingly committed fraud to secure a profit and in the process financially ruined lots of people. Hopefully Ken Lay will go away for life. Hopefully someoone turns Martha into their *****.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 12:33 AM
Hopefully someoone turns Martha into their *****.
Female prison, unfortunately.

[Guerrilla22]

Exactly.

[MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr]

Well, I bet if MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr or Capitalist Imperial were convicted of stock manipulation then we would probably be doing 30 years in a federal penetenary.

[praxis1966]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 12:59 PM
So, today they came out saying that Stewart will get five months of home detention, two years probation, and a $30,000 fine.

I'm curious to see what our cappie friends here think of this.

I'd also like to point out that while she was fined $30,000... today her stock went up and she made $60 million.... some fine eh? :lol:
You neglected to mention that she got five months in a federal prison. And as far as the "great contributor to the American economy and culture," well, I'm sorry you feel that way. It's only too bad they didn't ring her up on charges of slave ownership, as I've read and heard that she was notorious for mistreating her employees. I have no sympathy for the *****.

[Y2A]

It's ridiculous that you fools even consider this gosip "news".

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 07:25 PM
I think this will set a precedent for the punishment of future corporate criminals.
Don't count on it.

Every so often someone is punished, usualy someone famous, to give the impression that corporate crime is taken seriously. Most people guilty of corperate crime are never even prosecuted and when they are, they only get a small (by their standards) fine and a short jail sentence.

[RedCeltic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 05:54 AM
Don't count on it.

Every so often someone is punished, usualy someone famous, to give the impression that corporate crime is taken seriously. Most people guilty of corperate crime are never even prosecuted and when they are, they only get a small (by their standards) fine and a short jail sentence.
Yes exactly! Martha Stewart is sort of a scape goat to make people think that we do something about white collar crime. George W. Bush did the same thing but it will be a cold day in hell before they bring him up on charges.

It may be the fact that Martha Stewart came from litterally nothing yet is a woman who rose to a position of financial power to challange the "old boy's club."

[mark_d]

Not only should martha not be punished for what she did, but she should be venerated by all because of her successful business. plus, she's hot.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 09:51 PM
Not only should martha not be punished for what she did, but she should be venerated by all because of her successful business. plus, she's hot.
Oh, very.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 07:57 AM
It's only too bad they didn't ring her up on charges of slave ownership, as I've read and heard that she was notorious for mistreating her employees. I have no sympathy for the *****.
Yeah, alleged employee mistreatment is certainly analagous to slavery, yessiree!!!


She should have gotten at least two years in jail, she knowingly committed fraud to secure a profit and in the process financially ruined lots of people. Hopefully Ken Lay will go away for life. Hopefully someoone turns Martha into their *****.

Actually, what separates her from the other Corporate criminals of the early 2000's is that this fraud for her own benefit exclusively, and was relatively exclusive from and benign to other individuals. How do you figure that she "financially ruined" others? No one else was relly hurt in this, as the ImCLone stock was going to drop anyways.

[Guest1]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17 2004, 06:54 AM
Don't count on it.

Every so often someone is punished, usualy someone famous, to give the impression that corporate crime is taken seriously. Most people guilty of corperate crime are never even prosecuted and when they are, they only get a small (by their standards) fine and a short jail sentence.
I think he meant it'll set a precedent for lax punishments.

Martha Stewart should spend 10 years in some dirty prison in Texas.

[Lardlad95]

Who gives a fuck...now when Ken Lay's trial starts then I'll be interested

[Y2A]

Lardlad, the only one with the chocolate balls to tell the truth and not buy into the gossip. I applaud you.

[redstar2000]

Should she get 25 years to life for felonious bad taste? :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[refuse_resist]

That's so wrong they only gave her 5 months. Then again, she's rich, so of course she would be let off easy, almost like nothing even happend to her.


Not only should martha not be punished for what she did, but she should be venerated by all because of her successful business. plus, she's hot.

C'mon... you're kidding me right? You actually think someone who's old enough to be your grandma is hot? :lol:

[Stapler]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 18 2004, 04:50 PM
Actually, what separates her from the other Corporate criminals of the early 2000's is that this fraud for her own benefit exclusively, and was relatively exclusive from and benign to other individuals. How do you figure that she "financially ruined" others? No one else was relly hurt in this, as the ImCLone stock was going to drop anyways.
Except the person she sold the stock to. Idiot.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 03:21 AM
Except the person she sold the stock to. Idiot.
Wow, strong, Stapler. I'm impressed, LOL.

Martha didn't to sell to anyone in particular, she dumped it back into the market. Anyone who purchased ImClone stock on the cusp of a major announcement regarding FDA approval or rejection of their flagship drug was rolling the dice and has no one to blame but themselves.

Take an investment class, Einstein.

Get Serious. :lol:

[Guest1]

You do know why it's illegal to trade on insider information, right?

Cause if it was legal, you could crash the company to make money. That's what's wrong with what she did. I thought a Capitalist of all people would be outraged by this. She didn't just rip people off, she ripped fellow Capitalists off.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 20 2004, 04:08 PM
You do know why it's illegal to trade on insider information, right?

Cause if it was legal, you could crash the company to make money. That's what's wrong with what she did. I thought a Capitalist of all people would be outraged by this. She didn't just rip people off, she ripped fellow Capitalists off.
I'm not saying that she should not have been punished somewhat.

It was still a witchhunt, though.

[Guest1]

Hard to believe it's a witchhunt with the bullshit punishment she got. Gotta admit it was a very lenient punishment, the kind that Capitalism and the market themselves don't need or want right now. Confidence in the system is definitely not restored by a small fine like that and a little bit of home confinement.

[Solzhenitsyn]

She lied trying to cover up a non-criminal act to a government agent. The moral of the story: Don't talk to federal agents.

[gummo]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2004, 06:59 PM
So, today they came out saying that Stewart will get five months of prison,five months of home detention, two years probation, and a $30,000 fine.

I'm curious to see what our cappie friends here think of this.

I'd also like to point out that while she was fined $30,000... today her stock went up and she made $60 million.... some fine eh? :lol:
From what I understand she has had a total loss of about $300 million. The $60 she made in the stock jump hardley covers her losses. But hey, her total worth before the scandal was around a billion so I think she will be ok.

[Stapler]

Originally posted by Capitalist [email protected] 20 2004, 03:50 PM
Martha didn't to sell to anyone in particular, she dumped it back into the market. Anyone who purchased ImClone stock on the cusp of a major announcement regarding FDA approval or rejection of their flagship drug was rolling the dice and has no one to blame but themselves.
But she was privvy to that announcement before it's release. Acting on that knowledge is an illegal act, and does harm other people. As to wether these people deserved it, that's a matter of personal beleif. Martha stewart also lied to investigators, which is a major offense as well. Of course, in the land of capitalism, equal represantation before the law is only for the rich.


Grand theft, either as a felony or misdemeanor, is punishable by for up to one year in county jail or state prison. C.P.C. 489. In special cases involving grand theft of a firearm, theft is punishable with a minimum sentence of 16 months and a maximum sentence of 3 years in state prison.
Meaning that Martha Stewart got off on five months because she can do a better job of stimulating the economy outside of a prison.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 05:48 PM
But she was privvy to that announcement before it's release. Acting on that knowledge is an illegal act, and does harm other people. As to wether these people deserved it, that's a matter of personal beleif. Martha stewart also lied to investigators, which is a major offense as well. Of course, in the land of capitalism, equal represantation before the law is only for the rich.


Meaning that Martha Stewart got off on five months because she can do a better job of stimulating the economy outside of a prison.

But she was privvy to that announcement before it's release. Acting on that knowledge is an illegal act, and does harm other people. As to wether these people deserved it, that's a matter of personal beleif. Martha stewart also lied to investigators, which is a major offense as well. Of course, in the land of capitalism, equal represantation before the law is only for the rich.

Agreed, but that doesn't excuse the joe who bought the stock on the open market before awaiting the announcement, or at least doing some research


Meaning that Martha Stewart got off on five months because she can do a better job of stimulating the economy outside of a prison.

To that I would ask what are actual average sentences doled out in these situations? Was her sentence light, or actually worse compared to your average sentence? I don't know the answer, do you?

[Sasha]

The Injustice of the Insider Trading Laws (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3790)
by Andrew Bernstein
"The laws that prompted the investigation of Martha Stewart should be repealed because they violate individual rights."

Martha Stewart is Treated Badly Because She is Successful (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3378)
by Alexander Marriott
"This is a sad state of affairs in a country where people used to enjoy watching the successful rise of the able to pinnacles of wealth through their own determined efforts and ability. Now people get their kicks watching government bureaucrats devise laws in realms where they have no authority in order to destroy those who dared to be successful."

[Guerrilla22]

Please, she doesn't even have to serve any jail time, untill after the appeals process, on top of that if she was black and convicted on a regular robbery charge, she'd be serving 10 times what she is going to be serving, that's hardly being "unfair".

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2004, 12:33 PM
Please, she doesn't even have to serve any jail time, untill after the appeals process, on top of that if she was black and convicted on a regular robbery charge, she'd be serving 10 times what she is going to be serving, that's hardly being "unfair".
A robbery charge is much worse than a white collar crime with respect to the risk it poses to human life. The punishment should be much worse.

[Guerrilla22]

Please. Its the same thing. What if someone brakes into a car and steals a radio, is that endangering human liife?

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 20 2004, 07:00 PM
The Injustice of the Insider Trading Laws (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3790)
by Andrew Bernstein
"The laws that prompted the investigation of Martha Stewart should be repealed because they violate individual rights."
:o Well if this Andrew Bernstein chap said it then who am I to argue?


Martha Stewart is Treated Badly Because She is Successful (http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?id=3378)
by Alexander Marriott
"This is a sad state of affairs in a country where people used to enjoy watching the successful rise of the able to pinnacles of wealth through their own determined efforts and ability. Now people get their kicks watching government bureaucrats devise laws in realms where they have no authority in order to destroy those who dared to be successful."

There's nothing that gets me more excited than watching those bureaucrats nail a capitalist.

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:59 AM
Please. Its the same thing. What if someone brakes into a car and steals a radio, is that endangering human liife?
Thats not robbery, its theft. Legally spreaking, they are 2 different things.

Robbery involves directly engaging someone and harming, endangering, or threatenting their person to get property from them. Theft is stealing while no one else is around.

[Lardlad95]

Originally posted by [email protected] 19 2004, 01:11 AM
Lardlad, the only one with the chocolate balls to tell the truth and not buy into the gossip. I applaud you.
Thank you....

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 10:19 AM
:o Well if this Andrew Bernstein chap said it then who am I to argue?



There's nothing that gets me more excited than watching those bureaucrats nail a capitalist.
Was there supposed to be a point to this post?

[Micah EL Layl]

peace....
i hope she getsbuttfucked in prison!!!!
stupid cave *****....its about time
they lock up white collar criminals.......

[Misodoctakleidist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 05:20 PM
Was there supposed to be a point to this post?
About as much point as there was to yours.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2004, 09:50 AM
About as much point as there was to yours.
Oh my God. We're in the Opposing Ideologies forum, and I give a post showing the capitalist position. Imagine that.

You respond with some irrelevant crap about one author and prove the point of the other.

[Osman Ghazi]

CI, Sasha, et alia, you guys are missing something. The prison time she recieved was not for insider trading, it was for perjury! You know, when she lied to prosecutors, remember that? Is she allowed to do that becuase shes rich?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 06:37 PM
CI, Sasha, et alia, you guys are missing something. The prison time she recieved was not for insider trading, it was for perjury! You know, when she lied to prosecutors, remember that? Is she allowed to do that becuase shes rich?
No, she shouldn't, but her wealth (or fame) shouldn't be an issue in the 1st place.

I've said b4 in this thread, she should be punished, but in a manner commensurate with the average sentence of similar convictions under similar circumstances.

Was her sentence commensurate? I don't know.

[Osman Ghazi]

Was her sentence commensurate? I don't know.

Then why the are you complaining?

[Capitalist Imperial]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 07:57 PM

Then why the are you complaining?
I'm just asking.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 06:37 PM
CI, Sasha, et alia, you guys are missing something. The prison time she recieved was not for insider trading, it was for perjury! You know, when she lied to prosecutors, remember that? Is she allowed to do that becuase shes rich?
She wouldn't have committed perjury if she hadn't been brought to court over insider trading in the first place.

[Osman Ghazi]

She wouldn't have committed perjury if she hadn't been brought to court over insider trading in the first place.

Well, Saddam wouldn't have gassed Halabja if those Kurds weren't so rebellious. Does that mean it was right for Saddam to do that? No. And it doesn't make it okay for Martha Stewart to lie either.

Hell, what you've just said makes absolutely no sense at all.

By your logic, if the Jews hadn't been so uppity, Hitler wouldn't have had to , would he?

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 10:06 PM

Well, Saddam wouldn't have gassed Halabja if those Kurds weren't so rebellious. Does that mean it was right for Saddam to do that? No. And it doesn't make it okay for Martha Stewart to lie either.

Hell, what you've just said makes absolutely no sense at all.

By your logic, if the Jews hadn't been so uppity, Hitler wouldn't have had to , would he?
Your analogies don't work. The Kurds being rebellious and the Jews being "uppity" were not crimes. The first wrong was when Saddam gassed the Kurds and Hitler gassed the Jews. Saddam and Hitler were not acting in self-defense.

In Martha's case, the first wrong was the insider trading laws. Any action of self-defense after the fact is morally justified, just as it is justified to lie to a mugger about what you are carrying. Of course it isn't legally justified to do what Martha did, that is why she was tried and sentenced.

If I was in the same situation, I wouldn't have lied. Unless the law is overly oppressive, as they were in British-ruled India, it's best to respect the law and seek to repeal it through the normal legislative process. Too many pseudo-martyrs think it's okay to break the law on principle, which is nice until you run into people who hate a law for an irrational reason.

[Osman Ghazi]

Your analogies don't work. The Kurds being rebellious and the Jews being "uppity" were not crimes.

How so? In most countries, rebelling against the government is a crime.

So what you are saying is that the Islamic militants who are rebelling in Iraq are not committing a crime? So basically, the U$ government is just oppressing them. I'm glad you've come over to our side.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 23 2004, 11:13 PM

How so? In most countries, rebelling against the government is a crime.
I used the wrong word. I mean they were morally justified, not legally.

[DaCuBaN]

Saddam and Hitler were not acting in self-defense.

They thought they were. Saddam was attempting to quell rebellion, and Hitler thought he was saving the master race from the evil jews. From their perspective, they were acting entirely in self-defense.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2004, 01:20 AM
They thought they were. Saddam was attempting to quell rebellion, and Hitler thought he was saving the master race from the evil jews. From their perspective, they were acting entirely in self-defense.
Here comes the subjectivist creeping from within you, demanding that you value another's moral judgement as equal to your own. Saddam's strike against rebellion was wrong because his own regime was evil. Hitler's strike against Jews was wrong because it was based on a false premise.

[Solo]

This is all a setup for Kobe Bryant, The Gov. wants to avenge O.j. Simpson with Kobe Bryant, and there way of doing it is sending a white woman to prison so they can justify sending Kobe to prison.

It is the ultimate O.j. revenge certain people have been waiting for.

[DaCuBaN]

Here comes the subjectivist creeping from within you, demanding that you value another's moral judgement as equal to your own

It's not creeping I'm afriad... it's clamouring over peoples heads and demanding to be heard :lol: Subjectivism>Objectivism ;)

In all seriousness, they truly did believe they were doing the right thing - this in no way stops anyone from being judgemental, and hence does not get them 'off the hook' for their actions. In fact, it makes the prosecutors look all the more 'reasonable'.

Let me know when you find a black and white issue - an issue in which subjectivism plays no part. :D

[Osman Ghazi]

Sasha, even what you call 'objective reality' is tainted by your own biases.


Saddam's strike against rebellion was wrong because his own regime was evil.

You know, it is really impossible to be evil, as everyone does what they think is right. Evil is knowingly doing a wrongful act. But if you do something because you think it is the right thing to do, how can you be evil?

Besides which, everyone who claims to support objective reality have, in my experience, really been supporters of their own version of reality, which they dub objective.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)Evil is knowingly doing a wrongful act. But if you do something because you think it is the right thing to do, how can you be evil?[/b]
I don't go by the specific definition you have here. It can also have the broader definition of "morally wrong".


Osman Ghazi
Besides which, everyone who claims to support objective reality have, in my experience, really been supporters of their own version of reality, which they dub objective.
I don't claim to have a full understanding of reality. Only a religious intrinicist does. I only claim that I was born into this world without any prepackaged understanding of it, so I can only hope to get answers by actively observing specific parts of it and coming to general conclusions (induction).

I've been doing induction all my life, before I knew the word to describe it. I grasped objects, and quickly I became used to the fact that they cannot be two things at once; there are no contradictions. I later took this to the logical conclusion that there cannot be several different realities within the minds of each person contradicting each other; there is one, objective reality.

I observed that my mind cannot control matter; I cannot make things float, I cannot read minds, I cannot sit by an erupting volcano and pray that the lava doesn't get to me. I later to this to the logical conclusion that any kind of superstition or magical power is false. I can only learn about reality thru observation and reason, and I must trust my senses, for they are the only reason I can think in the first place.

[Osman Ghazi]

I don't go by the specific definition you have here. It can also have the broader definition of "morally wrong".


But then you would have to define morally wrong, too.


I don't claim to have a full understanding of reality. Only a religious intrinicist does. I only claim that I was born into this world without any prepackaged understanding of it, so I can only hope to get answers by actively observing specific parts of it and coming to general conclusions (induction).


This is true, I agree. The problem is that everyone is using their sense to determine reality and a lot of them are coming up with different conclusions. I'm not entirely sure that humans can really know what is 'objective reality'. No matter how much reason you have, there will always be pre-programmed biases that will affect your reasoning. That is the reason why two people can look at the same thing and yet see two different things.


I grasped objects, and quickly I became used to the fact that they cannot be two things at once

But the problem is: which of the two things is it really?


I observed that my mind cannot control matter

What about your arms and legs? :lol:


and I must trust my senses, for they are the only reason I can think in the first place.

Well then Hitler and Stalin must also trust their senses. And their senses told them that Jews and Kulaks must be slain, respectively.

It is funny because what you said could be taken as subjectivist. Everyone does trust their own senses. Their senses simply tell them different things.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)But then you would have to define morally wrong, too.[/b]
We discussed this in another thread a while back:

We are conscious, meaning that we can choose between alternatives. Like other creatures, staying alive is our ultimate value. Unlike other creatures, we were not born with a specific, instinctive course of action to fulfill that value. So we must seek out that knowledge. That's where morals and rights come in. Morality is a code of values that define how to nourish and sustain human life.

So 'morally wrong' is anything that rejects this code of values.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi+--> (Osman Ghazi)The problem is that everyone is using their sense to determine reality and a lot of them are coming up with different conclusions. I'm not entirely sure that humans can really know what is 'objective reality'. No matter how much reason you have, there will always be pre-programmed biases that will affect your reasoning. That is the reason why two people can look at the same thing and yet see two different things.[/b]
Back in the aforementioned thread, Reaver mentioned color-blindness as an example of when peoples' perceptions of things differ. My reply was as follows:

When people experience a difference in sensory form, they are not contradicting each other. The colorblind man is right to say that when the light rays act on his senses, he sees red. The normal-vision man is right to say that when the light rays act on his senses, he sees green. The light source is not inherently different for each person.

You may percieve different things, but the disagreement can be resolved by referring to what facts you've gained of the world. We know why some people are colorblind and others aren't. We know why some people get epileptic seizures that fool them into thinking they've seen the mother of God.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi

I grasped objects, and quickly I became used to the fact that they cannot be two things at once
But the problem is: which of the two things is it really?
What do you mean? You only ever see one thing; that is why you can conclude that they are never multiple things at once.


Originally posted by Osman Ghazi

I observed that my mind cannot control matter
What about your arms and legs?
Your brain can signal a part of you to move, this occurs by a series of explainable physical causes. Our consciousness cannot interact with the world without that bridge. My point is, we learn at an early age that our consciousness is not "above" existence.


Osman [email protected]
Well then Hitler and Stalin must also trust their senses. And their senses told them that Jews and Kulaks must be slain, respectively.
No, your senses are only organs giving you information in purely sensory form. Your judgement of that information is done in your brain, where the errors happened in the case of Hitler and Stalin.


Osman Ghazi
It is funny because what you said could be taken as subjectivist. Everyone does trust their own senses. Their senses simply tell them different things.
Refer back to the second quote of this post.

[DaCuBaN]

You may percieve different things, but the disagreement can be resolved by referring to what facts you've gained of the world. We know why some people are colorblind and others aren't. We know why some people get epileptic seizures that fool them into thinking they've seen the mother of God.


I think you're confused as to which camp you fall into to be perfectly honest...
This is a perfect subjectivist ramble ;) Note:


disagreement can be resolved by referring to what facts you've gained of the world

consensus reality? :D

What you intimate here is that it is foolhardy to ignore our sense - it's like cutting off your own nose to spite your face. However, the only way to confirm is through consensus. We generally agree that the acts of Hitler, Stalin, Pol-Pot and so on are in no way 'admirable'.

[Sasha]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN
consensus reality? :D

What you intimate here is that it is foolhardy to ignore our sense - it's like cutting off your own nose to spite your face. However, the only way to confirm is through consensus.
I said nothing of consensus. There is no majority vote or settling for a compromise when it comes to disagreements over perception. Science is the only solution.