Martha Stewart has been found guilty -- of two counts of lying to investigators, of conspiracy with her broker to hide the truth about her stock transaction, and of obstruction of justice (again, by lying to hide the truth). The charges all stemmed from her selling 3800 shares of personal stock in ImClone avoiding a potential loss of $51,000 by selling a day before some bad ImClone news became public.

She has not been found guilty of insider trading (she had no direct knowledge of what was happening inside of ImClone) and the judge threw out the prosecutor's weak charge that she was defrauding her own stock holders by claiming her innocence.

Her company -- Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia (NYSE: MSO) -- employs over 500 people and has a market capitalization of about $1/2 billion. Both K-Mart and Sears depend on her brands. Although the company is currently not being run by Martha and has been working to de-emphasize her name, the big selling point of MSO is Martha. She is currently a director of the company and Chief Creative Officer. Without her, the company isn't worth nearly as much.

Martha herself is worth over $300 million dollars (down from over a $1 billion before the stock transaction that got her into this mess).

Question for debate:

What is the appropriate punishment for Martha?

I'll post my view later in the thread.

I say she should get what normal people would; aproximatly 2.5 years per charge, (in a medium security prison, no camps) and the full amount of fines. I don't think she should get the full punshiment, as I think 10 years in prison is enough to straighten her up. I think the justice system needs to stop the coddling of corrupt and cheating CEOs. perhaps if the realized that by violating the law they would need to do hard time, they would clean up there acts. when people realize their freedom is at risk, they tend to behave. (if people know they will go to prison for 100 years for murder, their less likely to do it)

20 years in jail and not allowed to run a company again for defrauding investors, lying to investigators and obstruction of justice

As one of the jurors said after the finding: "This is a lesson to the bigwigs"

She should serve approximately the same time as other first time offenders convicted of similar crimes. I believe that is probably 18 months to 3 years,sentences served concurrently.. This is not Enron. This had nothing to do with her duties as CEO. She did a bit of inside trading and, unlike most, got caught. She should be punished justly, not more harshly due to her CEO status.

She should get the same sentence as any normal, everyday, person would. If she gets off lighter, it will just go to show that you can buy the courts.

This sentence will be more justice if it reflects the ideal that justice is blind.

Stewart's role as an employer and supplier of goods should have no impact.
The fact that she is a bigwig should be of no import.

She was convicted of 3 charges and she should be given a sentence that reflects her past criminal record and these charges. Hugo's interpretation sounds like it is in the ballpark of other such sentences I have read about, but outside of Law and Order I have no expertise in regards to this.

This is definitely NOT an insider trading case. Confusion abounds about this, but insider trading requires direct knowledge of something that's happening inside the corporation that no one outside the corporation would be privvy to knowing. In this case, her knowledge wasn't about the corporation, but about the personal trading activities of its CEO, so they couldn't make the "insider trading" case and didn't try.

Just to clarify: Had she said to investigators "Yes, I learned from my broker that my friend Sam Waksal had sold a bunch of his stock and I decided to do the same", then she would have gotten away without any legal or personal damage (although the broker would have been burned badly). She tried to cover for him and will pay a price for that more than the approximately $650 million she's already paid in net stock losses.

My understanding of the typical sentences in cases like this comes from two legal analyst's opinion on Charlie Rose last night. They both seemed to agree on three years being the maximum and a year to 18 months being the minimum. Seems about right to me. Her "bigwig" status should neither reduce or increase her sentence. I am a bit disturbed a juror would refer to her as a "bigwig" or declare her conviction as a victory for the "little people".

Let me apoligize for the insider trading comment. The charges Stewart was convicted of from CNN.



This is no Enron. People arguing that a corporate CEO should face harsher punishment due to her status are arguing for a dual standard of justice.

I think restitution should be the first order, even prior to jail time. 150% of the loss, starting with the smallest investors first, and this money should be doled out before even a single lawyer is paid. Then the sentencing guidelines as suggested. I am very happy the jury sent this notice, I hope it translates to the "bigwigs" at enron.

Er... Martha Stewart did not defraud her investors. This case concerns InClone stock. Investors in her company lost money due to Martha's reputation being tarnished. That is a risk you take when you invest in a stock that whose value is to a great deal determined by the reputation of a single individual.

I'm not sure if you construe my argument as CEOs facing harsher sentences or not. but if so let me clarify: were I convicted of conspiracy, obstruction, and 2 counts of false staements (each of which carry a maximum of 5 years prison, 250,000 in fines) I would likely bo facing AT LEAST half a million in fines (more likely the full million) and likely 2 years per charge to be served consecutivly. (meaning a minimum of 8 years) in a medium security prison (such as colorado's bent county) stewart on the other hand will likely get 1 year per charge (if that) in a minimum security camp (such as one on the list of the "Best Places To Go To Prison") face the minimum amount of fines.

I agree the economic status of a defendant SHOULDN'T effect their sentence, the fact is that it does. mrs. hilton (paris' mother) for example got a 21 month sentence in a minimum security camp for a tax evasion case. the justice system coddles wealthy people all the time why giving harsh punishments to poorer people.

CEOs shouldn't face a harsher punishment then others because they're CEO's they should face the same punishment as you or me would face, or perhaps we could get the treatment the do?

With your past criminal history they might throw the book at you. I doubt if I would serve more than two years in a minimum security lockup. I doubt if Martha is a escape risk.

I agree that she should face abut 18 months in minimum security which, from what I have heard, is the average sentence.

The point that needs to be emphasized that aff made so well is:



She lied to investigators and that is what she is convicted of. All too often in America people lie to the authorities, file false reports, initiate ridiculous lawsuits, etc, etc. We NEED to start holding these people accountable if we are ever to get a handle on this problem.

Martha's case is a wonderful example of this because it is her lies that she is convicted of. If she told the truth she would be walking away right now.

She is Personally Responsible for her deceitful actions, now it is time for us as a society to hold her accountable for them.

What we need to do is start holding everyone who lies to authorities accountable.

While technically as the law reads today she may not have been guilty of insider trading but she was privy to inside information. When the CEO dumped all his stock was that public knowledge? Was every stock holder called?

If not then the law needs to be changed. Sounds like another loop hole for the rich and connected.

In this instance Martha should be penalized like a normal citizen. Considering her background she’ll end up in Club Fed with other white collar criminals which is not biased or unfair treatment.

As far as any CEO and their lack of integrity when it comes to running a publicly held company, they should be penalized harsher than the general public. Just like corrupt police officers, they should be held to a higher standard and face stiffer sentences.

It’s called public trust, to hold it is a privilege, to violate it is far beyond simply breaking the law.

Are you sure of that Overland. If I knew the government was coming after me full guns I'd panic. She got horrible advice from her lawyers and I really beleive they never actually thought they'd go through with it. They were looking for a scapegoat that would distract people from the real crooks like the enron boys. Yes they are indeed going after these guys but only because it was just so flagrant.
The conspiracy freak in me thinks that some people are very upset that their shenanigans might be noticed more and are pulling strings to get them nailed hard.

What we need to do is start holding everyone who lies to authorities accountable.
Full agreement but unlikely to ever happen. Sort of ties into your post on Tax cuts benefitting the rich. It not so much that we who work for a living don't benefit from our tax money back but that there are different laws for us and for those with money. If we were to try that stuff we'd be in prison. They never even get charged.
BTW I am working on a response to that post. But the damn stuff is so complicated.
The convulutions and loop holes and the sheer gall is almost overwhelming.
I am a very firm beleiver in capitalism but these crooks are beyond the pale and are very well protected.

I agree with other members, if Martha Stewart had either taken the 5th or told the truth and paid the fines, it would have been a done deal. Instead her lies and the cover up are what got her convicted. Good example of the best and the brightest saying/doing stupid things and making stupid decisions.

The judge in Martha's case is life appointment rather than elected, so her judgement isn't going to hinge one iota on voters' reaction. I think the fines might be stiff, but the sentence light...maybe 12, 18 or 24 months total. Until I heard a couple of former female inmates talk about Fed Clubs, I too thought Martha would have a chance to play golf, teach the women how to decorate their cells, and help beautify the prison grounds. According to these two women, (one of whom was beaten until she looked like she had a fight with Tyson) the initial experience of entering prison is terrifying and whittles down the self-esteem in a hurry. There are women from all walks of life: white collar, blue collar, drug dealers, women with GED's...and they are hostile along with the guards who could care less what your station in life is on the outside. In fact, one woman said the guards sometimes are the most hostile to someone like Martha Stewart because she represents a financial and personal success that they personally will never be able to achieve. Every task is menial with no chance of enhancement. And their advice to Martha is to: get rid of the rich lady attitude, don't complain about anything, keep a low profile, be congenial, and go along with the program knowing that she will be getting out sooner rather than later.

Although I was never an avid fan of Martha's, I have compassion for her while believing she is guilty of all four charges with her motives being greed and arrogance...thinking she wouldn't get caught, then when she did, that the jury wouldn't find her guilty. And, quite possibly, she believes the judge wouldn't think of sentencing her to prison!

Her intent and crime IMO cannot be related to the big boys at World.com or Enron, but she banked everything she ever worked for and earned on a lousy 4,000 shares of stock! Only she will truly come to realize her foolishness in trying to salvage the nickels and dimes involved in the unlawful sale of this stock.

Ok, time to put my two cents worth here.

As much as vengeance is nice, this is a case of stupidity and arrogance, not real criminal mischief.

I wouldn't send Martha to jail. I don't see that much good comes out of making a "lesson" out of her. Other than to have folks who didn't like her in the first place feel better about themselves.

Here's what my punishment would be: $1,000,000 fine (the max possible). Five years probation. 2000 hours of community service in a homeless shelter.

Why not prison? Who benefits from sending her to prison? It's not like she was a danger to society. I'd rather save my prison space for someone who needs to be removed from society. I don't think her crimes or motives qualify for that. I'd rather hit her where it hurts the most: in the wallet. The community service part would be a wonderful way for her to reconnect with the little people out there.

Her company's stock has dropped dramatically, she'll probably be forced off the board of MSO, so I'd expect that that company will slowly fail (more layoffs for the economy to absorb someday). She's already left the Revlon board. No other board would want her. Her life is ruined anyway. Prison won't make that worse; it'll just take up Federal prison space for someone who has already been stripped of most of the important things in her life. Better for her to now learn to give back to those less fortunate. It's a good cure for arrogance.

Martha was sentenced to 5 months in jail today.

But I guess she isn't getting fitted for an orange jumpsuit very soon, with appeals and all. I think her arrogance bought her the jail time. The $30K sounds like a slap on the wrist. And jeez, house arrest? For the domestic diva?

I agree DaffyGirl. I think her interview after her sentence was disgusting. How she will be back etc. I think I am in the wrong business. Her sentence was a slap on the wrist and a slap in the face for consumers.

I think one of the worst punishments for Martha Stewart would be if the news media ignored her. Why do we persist in publicizing this stuff so much? It's not as though there isn't other, more important stuff in the news these days.

She's biting off her nose to spite her face having her attorney appeal this. It would be all over a lot quicker if she just served her time and got it over with.

Ah venegeance for the little people. Criminals all across the country were forced to re examine their lives today as one of the leading offenders and trafickers of Do it yourself crafts was finally brought to justice. The sentencing of the Doily Don brings to a close an exhausting chapter in American history that most of us will be glad to put to rest.
Yes no longer will we tolerate those whose personal actions inspired by greed cause results which lead to the crumbling of our economies and the devestation of job loss. Her followers will receive their just punishment as their jobs are taken away as her Empire of Evil crumbles down to the ground.
No more matching pastel terrycloth towel sets for the bathroom
No more place settings made out of ordinary items to spruce up that drab dinner table
Why in no time at all leading experts beleive that this will open the way for peace between Israel and Palestine.
Never again will those who are wealthy get away with corrupt activities that we "common" folk would be prisoned for.
Yes today AMERICA is safe
Freedom has been refortified
Yoour children are safe
andfor all those whose lives are a drab and dull and no where near her level of success they can revel in the destruction of an American woman who built an empire literally with her own hands because she did as we all would have done and got stupid when she got caught.

Ahh it is so nice to be on the same side as Chris again, phew, OK since this primary charges ummm insider trading were never brought against her, I think the whole thing has spun a bit out of control. I can't help but compare this to some recluse living in the Dessert, contacts Agents Skully and Moulder to report that little green men, came to earth and collected up one of each desert species. Well that would be a lie to federal agents. Would they prosecute, I would hope not as the primary lie really didn't cause any harm did it, it was just stupid.

Of course I support the rule of law, though I believe that actual jail time was a bit unnecessary. I guess if they had to give her 10 months, house arrest would have been a bit more appropriate, at least less tax dollars spent on incarceration of the DAAAA I should have called my lawyer before opening my big fat, hand stuck in the cookie jar mouth.

As to her court house steps speech, I liked it! What's that term Chutzpa. Jeese I momentarily considered buying her stock, LOL. Ahh maybe I'll stick with GE.

edited, and I refuse to admit why!

This made me think of a scene from one of my favorite movies:


Yeah, we need to crucify this woman because she covered up for a guy that helped her out and saved her some cash. How about we start cracking down on the people that would tell anyone anything, betray anyone, to save themselves from any sort of trouble? I call them rats, our society calls them law abiding citizens. Honor is truly dead.

And meanwhile everyone is celebrating this as a victory against "the evil Enron types" just because she happens to be a CEO (not that this had anything to do with her duties as CEO). Hey, let's go after Mike next, he is CEO of AD, is he not?

Victory for the little guy indeed.

Hey, this might be a bit off topic, but I heard they took the word "gullible" out of the dictionary...

Yeah and all the people that have lost or will loose their jobs because of this well that is just a casualty.

I think this was a personal vendetta against Martha, she was made an example of and she paid the price. Her actions do not warrant jail time. She is a self made woman who showed that you can come from nothing and be successful. Shrewdness is part of the deal. But people can't accept a woman being shrewd and good at business. We should be applauding her entrepreneurship not demonizing it. Ok she lied and she got caught. She is paying the price. Bill Clinton lied under oath. Now he got a slap on the wrist and certainly is not paying the price that Martha is.

Clinton got caught in an embarrasing and completely unflattering unexcusable situation and like a majority of men probably would he lied and hoped like hell he could survive it. Instead something that should have been allowed to be personal between he and Hillary(really could we have done worse to him than just leave him to the mercy of Hillary??) was used by vindictive republicans upset that he coopted their ideas and got the credit. Basically jealous that most Americans didn't view them as saviors of the free world and prostrate themselves before them in joyous rapture.
I agree with DreaM. Martha was first of all a decoy to distract Americans from the fact that getting the Enron types THAT DID ACTUAL DAMAGE TO THE ECONOMY, COST JOBS AND DESTROYED THE LIVES OF THOUSANDS would be difficult to convict and probably get only minimal sentences.
Second she was a salve for all those disenchanted, blame everyone else for their failure types who would probably cause their own selves harm JUST to bring down another person who was successful. [there was a study about this a few years ago anyone familiar with it I'm trying to find references to it]
This was angry villagers with torches not actual justice.

The correlation I was trying to achieve was (and I didn't make this clear) was Clinton lied to impede an investigation and then lied under oath. Martha lied to impede an investigation. Whether or not people think Clinton deserved the limelight or Republican feast that happened is in the eye of beholder. I tend to agree with you, Christopher, this was a matter between him and his wife. But when i hear the bashing against Martha and that she deserved what she got (or worse) then the whole Clinton thing comes to my mind. His actions were worse then hers, in that he lied under oath. The price Clinton paid for it was public embarrassment and the whole impeachment process but he didn't do jail time. Martha, on the other hand, is not only receiving the public embarrassment, she went to trial, her company is in jeopardy (of which her actions had nothing to do with her company), her employee's are suffering, she is going to jail, house arrest, and a fine.

2 years in jail and a $500,000 fine. All this "5 months house arrest" crap is a slap on the wrist and is just pathetic. Of course, she's a millionaire and we all know the rich are powerful even against the justice system. If she didn't have all that money, she would get 10 years for lying

What is the appropriate punishment for Martha?

I think that all corporate criminals, breaking the law in order to increase their own worth, should lose ALL assets, and have their bank accounts reduced to $0.00. If they are smart, and were successful in business, than they should be able to rebuild their wealth, and this time, I bet they follow the law.

Martha should forfeit her entire net worth. She never feared prison while committing the crime, as most white collar criminals don't.

The taxpayers would MAKE money on people like Martha, as opposed to spending tax money to incarcerate her.

Threaten a rich person with jail, and you'll find out how good of a lawyer they can buy. Threaten a rich person with poverty, and they will act properly.

Careful there Go America you'll find yourself banned for life from Republican reindeer games for such Leftist speech. Next thing you'll know you'll be labeled as "Looking French"

This is like comparing Joey gettin caught with a dimebag and trying to establish him as the head honcho of a Columbian Cartel. She tried to prevent taking a financial hit __and sorry Bub but we would all do the same__ and then panicked when she got in trouble. Even worse she listened to her lawyers. That is where the advice to deny came from probably. It is the staus quo for that type of thing. Unfortunalty the financial Black Hole that was Enron had the public too incensed or she would have gotten community service if anything at all and probably a more appropriate and damaging fine.
I am more interested in the Enron typee CEOs who activly broke the law and the politicos who allowed it to happen.


Yeah GREAT idea!
and when we catch guys who are 16 having sex with their girfriends we can castrate them. Or life in prison for smoking a joint.
Heavy fines sure. The complete destruction of a person however doesn't fit. Little too draconian there Darth Mule.

Correct me if I am wrong though, seriously, I may have my facts off,



I don't believe the stocks were company holdings but from her personal portfolio, so I don't think the term corporate criminal applies here. If we were to follow this train of thought then if I get caught insider trading then I should loose everything? Is that really the precedent that we would want to set? To me the only fair way to look at this is to see her as maybe one's next door neighbor, now if someone can still say they feel as strongly as they present here then of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. Me personally, I prefer a more tempered justice system.

Maybe Corporate Criminal is the wrong term, Not sure. And I am not implying that her corporation suffer. She would NOT go to jail, be able to return to her job and resume making money for herself AND the company. But that 300-500 million dollar bank account that she has amassed........POOF, Gone, you should have played by the rules when playing within Corporate America.

Illegal stock trades....BAM you're poor. (Martha)

Mislead employees regarding stock. Telling them to buy when you are selling....BAM.....welcome to a few nights looking for food (Ken Lay).

These people would get back on their feet again, and they will NOT risk losing their personal worth, and therefore, they would play within the bounds of the law.




Great idea, HORRIBLE analogy!

Can a castrated guy grow his manhood back?

Is losing your last dollar akin to spending your life in jail?

Again, I am not saying "throw away their Corporate Key", and never allow them to play again. These people were successful, and I have to believe that their successes were based on their legal business deals, as opposed to the illegal ones. They should have no problem re-establishing themselves financial, and this time around, understand that they face serious consequences for illegal activity. "Minimum Security Camps" do not deter. Losing one's wealth would.

Hope that clears it up young Jedi........

Perhaps in the case of an Enron where the deceit and lies were so egregious.
However what Martha did is more along the lines of another analogy I made to Go America of joey and his dimebag. It is a far cry from being a Drug Kingpin.
She in no way defrauded investors or damaged the economy causing job loss.
So a short prison sentence with
large Marge as a cell mate and a fine is reasonable.
Complete loss of a lifetimes effort. Hell the effort necessary to build her empire alone gives some protection. It is so rare to see anyone with actual ambition.
I still think this particular case was nothing more than pitchforks and torches to bring down the Ice Queen cause she isn't all cudly and sweet.
I still beleive this was more a feeding frenzy for the jealous than actual justice.

Embrace the Dark Side cause absolute power is a stone trip

Your soft side is heard in the Dark world MWaaaaaaa..........

I concede.........

The punishment that I suggested, would be much more appropriate to old' Kenny boy and the Enron Fraternity, but Martha should be included under a "ZERO TOLERANCE" policy in corporate america.

Ok, so it seems like we are at least heading down a path of mutual acceptance.

In Martha's case, one could take into consideration that her actions had little effect on others, and the profits, or lack of losses, amounted to about an afternoons pay for Martha. You are probably right that she shouldn't lose 400 million for that. But, But, if the law was in place that she COULD receive the harshest penalty, see above posts, then the determent would be an effective one.

Just as in this case, she was NOT given the maximum sentence, and even under my "I RULE THE DARKSIDE WITH AN IRON FIST, and Light-Saber" law, she would probably be given a lighter sentence, but it would still involve hitting her in the pocket-book, and hitting her hard.

(Insert Saber swinging swoosh in the shape of a Mule here)

Do you mean a greater fine on the basis of her net worth? Cause that would be a whole new level of income redistribution wouldn't it? I can see it now, Rich neighbor gets a failure to stop at the stop sign ticket, judges imposes a $1,000 fine for her cause well, she does make more than the average American. I get a failure to stop, Judge imposes average $150 fine cause well I am an average income American and lets us not forget that poor person who fails to stop, well I believe $25 for her. All for the same offense? An interesting concept though seems a bit unfair.

Leave it to Martha to make lemonade from lemons...with sprigs of mint!

I wonder what she'll call it?

OK NOW I am Reconsidering a Stewart Stock Purchase

She really is too much, I can see it now, "Chicken Soup For The Felon". or " A CEO's Guide to a Coordination of Services During a Trial" or how about "A Holistic approach to Felony"

In light of this New and Exciting information I now advocate no jail time at all and as a punishment a % of the profits of her new book to be donated to the ACLU. Win Win Scenario!

C'mon now Piper she hired a prison advisor to counsel her how to survive in prison.
Apparently this is all the rage among the current crop of white collar criminals and very good business for ex cons.

So I would imagine a whole slate of self help books to hit the market.

the E channel will cover the latest in prison wear.

Springer will do counseling for inmates who have a secret to tell their cell mate.

and the guaranteed to be a classic Idiots Guide to "So you dropped your soap, now what"