March 08, 2004FREE MARTHA!I think that the conviction of Martha Stewart is abhorrent. She was prosecuted for something that shouldn't even be a crime, and is being punished by the media and by the government for her virtues, essentially. She is being held up as an example of the "common man" bringing down someone who got too big for her britches. To wit: check out some of the comments over at MeFi on this subject (although, to be fair, there are a few defenders in there). Amber Pawlik has an apt summary of my thoughts.But since she has been convicted, I'm confused by one particular feature of our legal system: why will she not be sentenced until June? Is this in order to allow her to mount a possible appeal? Any legal beagles out there able to explain - using small words - why sentencing often (usually?) occurs so much later than the conviction...? Posted at March 8, 2004 06:09 PM | TrackBackCOMMENTS!
Maybe it's because they schedule the sentencing at the time of the verdict...after all, there's no reason to set aside time in their schedule if there's an acquittal. Posted by: Skip Perry at March 8, 2004 10:11 PMPersonally I can't wait for the upcoming episode of "Martha Stewart's Prison Living" where she will be showing us the proper shiv to use if someone messes with your percolating still of raisin jack! Posted by: Randy at March 9, 2004 08:24 AMI suspect what Martha did is something done every single day. A crime? Sure. But this was a witch hunt and she's considered a bitch because that's what all no-b.s. women are in the business world. Men are aggressive go-getters. Women are bitches. Clinton lied. Where was his jail time? Posted by: Renee at March 9, 2004 03:26 PMIt's true that Martha broke the law. It's also true that she was a supporter of the Democrats. It's also true that nobody lost their life's savings. Ken Lay of Enron fame is a Repulican supporter. I wonder what party Bob Gannon supports? Posted by: Joe G at March 10, 2004 09:45 PMPost a comment
|