Does Martha Deserve it?

"Darryl L. Pierce" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

>> > Does your "paper" deal with violent crimes or with
>> > "white collar"
> crimes.
>>
>> Why do you put paper in quotes? The research paper
>> deals with the

myth

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> that
>> the fear of punishment works as a deterrent. It
>> deals with both violent
> and
>> non-violent crimes in that it talks about
>> *criminals*.
>
> I would put it in quotes too. From your posts your
> "paper" sounds

like

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> a college freshman level polemic that, rather than
> impartially

investigating

Quoted message said:

> an issue, instead tries to prove a point that you
> already believe in.

So, because I have a different opinion that you or
Dave, my research couldn't possibly be serious, well
thought out of persuasive? That's quite a leap there,
mate.

I said nothing of the sort.

You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please
explain what you *did* mean by your statement. You
explicitly suggest that it's not an impartial paper, and
that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal opinions?

Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more
try. You said that your paper "explored the myth that prison
is a deterrent" (or words to that effect). Already it's a
myth - see my point? You did not say that your paper
"explored the question of whether prison is a deterrent or
is not a deterrent." This suggests to me that from the
beginning your paper was a polemic, designed to advance a
specific opinion.

But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not
presented any evidence that prison is not a deterrent.
Statistics that the prison population is rising are
irrelevant. Also, your claims about not proving a negative
are way off base. It is a negative only because of how it is
phrased. One could phrase your position as "the rate of
criminal activity remains unchanged by the threat of prison"
with the counter-position being "the rate of criminal
activity does not remain unchanged by the threat of prison."
Now your theory is the positive and you have to prove it.

And, as this and previous messages from you have shown, you
cannot or will not understand what I say. You repeatedly
misinterpret my statements and drag the discussion off into
tangents. You obscure the issue by turning the discussion
into my perceived disrespect for your paper (which we
*still* have not seen).

Finally, your stateemt:

Quoted message said:

I've stated that the belief that it's a deterrent is a
myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent"
supports that.

is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a
deterrent" and "not enough of a deterrent" are the
same thing?

I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are
imprisoned for trivial crimes - primarily drug possession
IMO. But I believe this because drug possession does not
harm society at large, *not* because I think that it does
not deter people. On the other hand, what Martha did *does*
harm society. All too many people do this sort of thing as
it is. I'd hate to think what it would be like if there was
no threat of prison. Your opinion is that things would not
change at all - but yuo need to support that opinion with
more than tenuous correlations and speculation.

Cheers,

Peter

[email hidden] deliciously posted in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

Dave Smith said:

Rehabilitation is usually some sort of program to educate
or train people so that they can find meaningful
employment so that they can find a way to support
themselves without having to resort to crime. Martha has
job skills. I don't think that there is any question
about that. She has a lot of money, so she can easily
afford to pay a fine. I think a little jail time is
called for.

Not me. My tax dollars can be spent in much better ways.
The solution is simple. The fine should be higher. The
fine should be of sufficient magnitude to make Martha
Stewart feel the financial pain. The same is true of all
white collar crimes. Make the crimes cost more than it
would to do business honestly and you'll see corporate
malfeasance become a rarity.

Quoted message said:

Consider that the US has laws to seize property and
assets obtained though crime. I have read stories of old
people losing their farms because someone grew a little
bit of pot in the back 40 without their knowledge. In
this case, she would be paying a fine out of the money
that she made through illegal stock deals.

Martha Steward reportedly made $50K off that imclone
stock deal. Make the fine $5 million and it sure would be
a huge disincentive to others who might commit a white
collar crime.

I agree with this Stan. I don't think MS should do jail
time. I think a huge fine would be more appropriate and
maybe some community service work. I hope her companies
survive it. She probably has a few hundred if not thousands
of people on the payroll.

Michael
--
Deathbed statement...

"Codeine . . . bourbon." ~~Tallulah Bankhead, actress, d.
December 12, 1968

Peter Aitken said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> So, because I have a different opinion that you or
> Dave, my research couldn't possibly be serious, well
> thought out of persuasive? That's quite a leap there,
> mate.

I said nothing of the sort.

You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please
explain what you *did* mean by your statement. You
explicitly suggest that it's not an impartial paper, and
that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal
opinions?

Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more
try. You said that your paper "explored the myth that
prison is a deterrent" (or words to that effect). Already
it's a myth - see my point?

Yeah. So? The thesis has been discussed by me before, and
it is supported. Do you see that you're committing the
genetic fallacy?

Quoted message said:

You did not say that your paper "explored the question of
whether prison is a deterrent or is not a deterrent." This
suggests to me that from the beginning your paper was a
polemic, designed to advance a specific opinion.

So, you jumped to a conclusion, in other words? Yeah, the
paper *does* explore whether the claim that prison is a
deterrent. It concludes that it's *not* and that conclusion
is supported by evidence.

Quoted message said:

But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not
presented any evidence that prison is not a deterrent.

You're right, you can't. It's logically impossible to prove
a negative. But you *can* show evidence that shows the
positive claim that it *is* a deterrent to be incorrect.

Quoted message said:

Statistics that the prison population is rising are
irrelevant.

No, it's quite on target. The prison population grows
disproportionately to the general population growth. I never
said that that was *conclusive*. I actually said that that's
only *part* of the information used to show the positive
claim to be wrong.

Quoted message said:

Also, your claims about not proving a negative are way off
base. It is a negative only because of how it is phrased.

Oh, spare me your ignorance, okay? It is not a positive or a
negative claim based on phrasing. It (the assertion "prison
is a deterrent"😉 is a positive claim because it asserts the
*existence* of some thing, in this case that the prison
system acts as a deterrent to criminals. The onus for
supporting such a claim falls squarely on the shoulders of
the person making the positive claim, with the default
position (the one my paper takes) being to reject the claim
until such a time as it is proven. Don't believe me? Go do a
google on positive claims and the burden of proof.

Quoted message said:

One could phrase your position as "the rate of criminal
activity remains unchanged by the threat of prison" with
the counter-position being "the rate of criminal activity
does not remain unchanged by the threat of prison." Now
your theory is the positive and you have to prove it.

You're demonstrated a marked lack of ignorance
concerning logic.

Quoted message said:

And, as this and previous messages from you have shown,
you cannot or will not understand what I say. You
repeatedly misinterpret my statements and drag the
discussion off into tangents. You obscure the issue by
turning the discussion into my perceived disrespect for
your paper (which we *still* have not seen).

Yeah. Putting "paper" into quotes and suggesting that it's
not impartial is really showing respect, eh? Tell me, what
if it *were* a freshman paper? Do you think that
automatically makes it not convincing; i.e., do you commit
the genetic fallacy there as well?

Quoted message said:

Finally, your stateemt:

Quoted message said:

I've stated that the belief that it's a deterrent is a
myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent"
supports that.

is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a
deterrent" and "not enough of a deterrent" are the
same thing?

Effectively, yes. They *are* the same thing. If
something does not deter, it does not deter. Why do you
find it mind-boggling?

Quoted message said:

I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are
imprisoned for trivial crimes - primarily drug possession
IMO. But I believe this because drug possession does not
harm society at large, *not* because I think that it does
not deter people.

I think people should not be imprisoned for non-violent
crimes or who have not been shown to be a physical threat to
others. Drug possession in and of itself is not a violent
act and jailing non-violent offenders is barbarism.

Quoted message said:

On the other hand, what Martha did *does* harm society.

How has she harmed society? She *may* have harmed other
investors, but that is hardly "society".

Quoted message said:

All too many people do this sort of thing as it is. I'd
hate to think what it would be like if there was no threat
of prison.

Arguments from incredulity aside, the threat of being shot
in the head for commiting the crime would have a bit more of
an effect, so why not take that route? I'm sure even *more*
people would be deterred.

Quoted message said:

Your opinion is that things would not change at all

No. My opinion (based on the facts I've found) is that
things *HAVE NOT* changed. Perhaps that's your problem, you
don't understand what I *AM* saying.

Quoted message said:

- but yuo need to support that opinion with more than
tenuous correlations and speculation.

You make alot of assumptions about what I've written,
speaking of speculation...

[email hidden] wrote

Quoted message said:

The entire prosecution of Martha Stewart is a scam being
purpetrated on the public by the Securities & Exchange
Commission. MS did nothing that no one else would have
done, and has done. She was not involved in insider
trading and she defrauded no one.

The SEC, which sued her for insider trading, apparently
disagreed.

Quoted message said:

The SEC is using MS to divert the public's attention
against the real corportate theives who have ripped off
the life savings of many hard working individuals.

Dozens of whom have been sued by the SEC already. Not bad
considering the Republicans consistently fought to gut the
SEC's budget until Enron & Worldcom forced them to start
beefing up the agency.

Quoted message said:

This is really obvious by the fact that the SEC tried to
nab Martha Steward on securities fraud, which the judge
said was completely bogus.

Actually, it was the Justic Department that filed the
securities fraud charge against Stewart. The SEC did not.

zxcvbob <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

No one was defrauded by MS lying about that infamous limit
order. I suspect she did illegal insider trading, but
notice that she was never charged with that. Until she is
charged and convicted of that crime, she is presumed
innocent and all the public outrage against her is
misplaced.

Wrong. The SEC has sued Stewart for insider trading. That
case is stayed pending the criminal prosecution.

Quoted message said:

The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an
insider trading indictment because that's difficult to
prove. But they knew a manipulative controlling b! like
Martha would perjure herself if they set a trap by lying
to her about an insider trading investigation. It's called
"entrapment."

Are you delusional? What lie was told to her? There was an
insider trading investigation... and it resulted in the SEC
suing her. Nobody forced her to lie. Entrapment requires the
government to concoct a crime and lure an unwilling person
into participating. Here, Stewart made the trade of her
volition, and decided to lie to the SEC and FBI about it.
Twelve jurors agreed.

On Mon, 15 Mar 2004 11:38:22 -0600, zxcvbob <[email hidden]>
arranged random neurons, so they looked like this:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

The prosecuters had no intention of going forward with an
insider trading indictment because that's difficult to
prove. But they knew a manipulative controlling b! like
Martha would perjure herself if they set a trap by lying to
her about an insider trading investigation.

It's called "entrapment."

Here we go again. The legal definition of "entrapment" (see
dictionary.law.com):Open ↗

entrapment
n. in criminal law, the act of law enforcement officers or
government agents inducing or encouraging a person to
commit a crime when the potential criminal expresses a
desire not to go ahead. The key to entrapment is
whether the idea for the commission or encouragement of
the criminal act originated with the police or
government agents instead of with the "criminal."
Entrapment, if proved, is a defense to a criminal
prosecution. The accused often claims entrapment in so-
called "stings" in which undercover agents buy or sell
narcotics, prostitutes' services or arrange to purchase
goods believed to be stolen. The factual question is:
Would Johnny Begood have purchased the drugs if not
pressed by the narc?

No one *induced* or *encouraged* MS to commit a crime.
Howinhell could the SEC or the FBI "know" MS would perjure
herself? She was asked by federal investigators if she had
information that a) IMClone's stock was going to tank, and
b) she sold her stock ahead of the public dissemination of
the information. She lied and she was charged with
obstructing justice and lying to investigators. No one
encouraged her to lie, AFAICS. She lied to cover her butt
And it was a really stupid
lie. We're talking $50K out of her multi-zillion dollar
empire! If she'd just have said, "Oh, what was I
thinking? OMG! You're right! That was illegal!" She'd
surely have gotten off with a fine. Period. But she
seemed to think that Martha Stewart was bullet proof.

Not.

Terry "Squeaks" Pulliam Burd AAC(F)BV66.0748.CA

"If the soup had been as hot as the claret, if the claret
had been as old as the bird, and if the bird's breasts had
been as full as the waitress', it would have been a very
good dinner." Anonymous.

To reply, remove replace "shcox" with "cox"

I don't agree with fines, unless they go to the victims. If
it's a fine that goes to the court, screw them.

The latter seems a crime in itself.

"Alun" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (Steve Dufour) wrote in
:"]news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

"larry" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Well she lied, cheated, stole and got caught.. so I
guess she deserves to go to JAIL. I think they should
fine the #%&$ out of her and put her back to work to
pay some big taxes. But on the other hand those with
plenty of money are not very afraid of paying a fine..
big deal.. but some time in stripes scares nearly
everybody.

Laurence

From today's Washington Times

Saving the streets from Martha Stewart

By Wesley Pruden

We'll all sleep better now, feeling safe and secure in
our beds (with or without flowered sheets). The feds are
finally getting Martha Stewart off the streets. Her
expensively coiffed scalp will look nice on the wall
behind the desk of the U.S. district attorney who led
the prosecution. Martha, who insists on things being
done right, will help him choose the appropriate
presentation for her scalp. A mahogany frame against a
deep red matte ought to set off Martha's blonde locks in
an elegant and fetching way. Some of the reporters and
pundits who are offended most by Martha's advocacy of
grown-up clothes and neat hair, orderly digs, and
flowers and dishes arranged for a king's most demanding
subjects haven't had so much fun since the feds hounded
Jim and Tammy Faye Bakker into prison and oblivion for
overbooking their hotel. The first juror who spoke up
after the verdict called throwing Miss Stewart into the
slammer a victory for "the average guy." You could hear
in his voice the triumphant note of revenge done well.
"Maybe it's a victory for the little guy who loses money
in the markets because of these types of transactions,
the people who lose money in 401(k) plans," said
Chappell Hartridge, 47, a computer programmer who talks
too much. "Maybe it might give the average guy a little
more confident feeling that can invest in the market and
everything will be on the up and up." Well, maybe. But
making Martha Stewart an example for a seminar on
prudent investing is a bizarre use of a federal criminal
trial, particularly since the feds' bill of particulars
was thin soup to begin with and made more so when the
judge threw out the charge of insider trading, the only
blob of genuine bone and fat in the pot. Juror Hartridge
and his prejudices, it now seems clear, was exactly what
the feds were counting on to save them from the
humiliation of a collapsing railroad job. Miss Stewart,
by all accounts, is not very nice: Arrogance,
haughtiness, self-importance and a condescending manner
are no more attractive in a Connecticut maven of
gracious living than in, for example, a presidential
candidate from Massachusetts. A nice Polish girl from
New Jersey got into trouble in the first place by
hanging out with the wrong crowd, the swells and belles
of the Upper East Side who summer on Long Island Sound.
She should have listened to her mama, who knew that
hanging out with the wrong crowd is guaranteed to get a
girl into trouble, and not necessarily the kind of
trouble a girl can get into between flowered sheets. One
of the cable-TV talking heads, a woman who was once a
federal prosecutor, called Miss Stewart the prototypical
"rich [censored]," showing up in court in her furs, jewels
and designer dresses. Indeed, her expensive lawyers
should have taken her back to New Jersey to find a Wal-
Mart to deck her out in a peasant frock. They could have
returned to Lower Manhattan to warn some of her
celebrity friends, such as Rosie O'Donnell and Bill
Cosby, to stay away from the courthouse if they really
wanted to help. "If anything," the voluble Juror
Hartridge said of the parade of Martha's rich and famous
friends, "we may have taken it a little as an insult. Is
that supposed to sway our opinion?" In a word, yes.
That's the way lawyers play the game. This time, the
defense trick worked instead for the prosecution. Miss
Stewart may be entitled to a rebate from her lawyers.
But Martha Stewart was not indicted on the charge of
[censored], witchery or even slickery. She was indicted on
charges of conspiracy, obstruction of justice and making
false statements to federal agents, who are themselves
enabled by the law to lie. The government even suggested
that she was guilty of "lying" simply for saying that
she was innocent of wrongdoing. This is pretty rich from
the side that gets to mark the cards. We've always taken
a certain pride in the proposition that in America,
class doesn't count, that we look out for the poor but
don't begrudge the rich their wealth. We look to them as
an example of how to make it to a million-dollar mansion
on Coffee Pot Lane. Recent decades of class warfare,
abetted by the rich, the pampered and the celebrated who
play at populism, have changed that. Greed has replaced
religion as the national religion, and with greed comes
envy. Martha Stewart's transgressions were more sins
than crimes, and learning a little humility is never a
bad thing. But when the government commits vendetta, the
sin becomes a crime. The government ought to be ashamed
of its bullying self.

Wesley Pruden is editor in chief of The Times.

I don't actually like Martha Stewart too much, but I don't
think she

should

Quoted message said:

go to jail. What offends me about the decision is that I
feel that with

the

Quoted message said:

underlying charge of insider trading dropped, it was wrong
to pursue the other charges. It comes down to lying about
a crime she thought she had committed, but hadn't. Nobody
should go to jail for that. It's not a question of
jurisprudence, just one of exercising reasonable
discretion. However, if her (new) lawyers can make a case
on appeal that the convictions can't stand because they
are based only on lying about something she didn't do, I
wish them well.

"Zeitsev" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I don't agree with fines, unless they go to the victims.
If it's a fine that goes to the court, screw them. The
latter seems a crime in itself.

You are the one person who has made the most sense in
this debate,, as a fine in her case would be
inappropriate and a LONG jail sentence the only
"punishment" for her convictions. Cheers Eric

Steve Wertz said:

Pan Ohco said:

Steve Wertz said:

>Every Federal prisoner, that I have seen, wore the
>orange jump suit. Of course there may be some that wear
>normal cloths, possibly at the "club fed" prisons.

They only wear orange jump suits when they travel
someplace (like court or being transferred to another
prison). Have you ever actually been *in* a Federal
prison, or just seen it on TV and the movies?

Yes Steve I have been. That is why I stated those "that I
have seen". Pan Ohco

They don't wear orange jumpsuits *inside* the prison
(unless they're getting ready to go someplace).

-sw

O.K. I guess I didn't see what I thought I saw. I thought
that the federal prisoners that I have interviewed in
federal prison were wearing orange jump suits. But I
must be wrong again.

YMMV. Pan Ohco