According to CNN/Money, Martha Stewart plans to write a book about her prison experience.


Questions for debate:
[1]Given that she was fined $30,000, is it appropriate that she profit from her crime by writing a book about it? Why or why not?

[2]If profiting from a crime is unacceptable, would it be legitimate if the courts required that the proceeds (or a portion of) from the book be diverted into some trust to benefit society somehow? Or is there another way to prevent such profiteering from criminal acts?

I don't have a problem with this..in regards to profiting from her crime..as I feel she is the victim in all this.

What I do have concerns with is this news is now out. She is said to be making 5+ million on this deal..I would imagine others in prison with her might be a wee bit jealous. You would think Martha wouldn't want that kind of attention right now.

[1]Given that she was fined $30,000, is it appropriate that she profit from her crime by writing a book about it? Why or why not?

In the great entrepreneurial spirit of our country, it isn't a crime. What happened all of a sudden to unfettered capitalism?

[2]If profiting from a crime is unacceptable, would it be legitimate if the courts required that the proceeds (or a portion of) from the book be diverted into some trust to benefit society somehow? Or is there another way to prevent such profiteering from criminal acts?

This question might be more valid if G. Gordon Liddy and the other Watergate conspirators didn't write books and travel the lecture circuit forever afterward.

Look, Martha Stewart did wrong--but the fact is that she was convicted for lying, not for insider trading. And that is some weird way to practice law. What I dislike most about her is her arrogance. But we don't jail people for arrogance. I think she got a bad rap (compared to others), and I am still buying her products. In a previous post, I said that she should just be denied publicity, but I've re-examined my position and changed it (which makes me a flip-flopper, I guess ).

Show me the Enron executives who have been indicted for longer than Martha Stewart was. How many of them have been able to buy all kinds of time and haven't even been tried yet? There is too much partiality in the judicial system.

Stewart is being punished by serving her time. She hurt no one by her crime. She didn't destroy other peoples' fortunes by her behavior. So why should we begrudge her a book for going through the experience?

Edited: Changed Exxon ( ) to Enron.

[1]Given that she was fined $30,000, is it appropriate that she profit from her crime by writing a book about it? Why or why not?

I have mixed thoughts about Martha Stewart, but I think she is more a victim than a criminal. What got her was lying to the government. How odd when the government lies to us on a daily basis. You know, it's the old Nixon thing about being in the interest of national security that the government withholds the truth.

In 2003 Wally Lamb and the Women of the York Correctional Institution in Connecticut published a book of "testimonies" entitled Couldn't Keep it to Ourselves. I remember seeing a Sixty Minutes Story about the state of Connecticut trying to keep the proceeds to pay for the women's incarceration. This despite Lamb's statement, "Out of respect for Connecticut's Son of Sam law, the contributors to this anthology have not written directly about the crimes for which they were convicted." The plan fell through and the state eventually got only a small portion of the proceeds.

[2]If profiting from a crime is unacceptable, would it be legitimate if the courts required that the proceeds (or a portion of) from the book be diverted into some trust to benefit society somehow? Or is there another way to prevent such profiteering from criminal acts?

Considering that there is some concern for Martha's safety because of prison under staffing, her book might be useful in pointing out what life in the "big house" is like. The book should be particularly valuable when one considers that the fastest rising group in federal and state prisons is women.

http://www.wbur.org/special/prison/women.shtml

I don't want the feds getting a dime of the proceeds from Martha's book or mandating what she does with that money.

If she chooses to donate the money to prison refom or some worthy effort, that's a different matter.

Edited to Add:

PE is right . Other Watergate figures, including Chuck Colson and John Dean, (recently Worse Than Wategate) have written books.

Amy Fisher, the one time underage mistress of Joey Buttafuco was guest on Deborah Norville Tonight last night. Ms. Fisher, who's crime was certainly more serious than anything Matha Stewart ever thought about, has a new book entitled If I Knew Then. To her credit, the former "Long Island Lolita" has straightened her life out, which may mean, rumors to the contrary, that rehabilitation does actually work at times.

Hey, Al Capone wasn't convicted of murder, extortion, or racketeering, either. He was convicted of tax evasion. It's not a weird way to practice law, at all. You prosecute what you (think) you can convict.

That said, I don't have a problem with her writing a book about her prison experience. I certainly won't be buying a copy, but, if others wish to waste their money on it, that's their business.

NiteGuy,

I have a couple of bones to pick with your post.

First, Martha Stewart must be held accountable for the crime for which she was convicted, lying to the government—nothing more, nothing less. Capone is irrelevant to this issue. To assume Martha has done something worse, is to violate the spirit of justice. I would suggest that a certain conservative Texas Congressman (some of you won’t have to guess to hard to figure out the person I’m writing about) does more illegally and of criminally greater magnitude daily that Martha Stewart has done in her lifetime.

Second, as the quote below indicates, women are the fastest growing segment of U. S. prison population. As such, first hand experience books by female prisoners may have value beyond financial gain. I do not think you can predetermine the value of Martha’s book. If she writes an honest account of her time behind bars, it might be worth buying and reading. If she writes a volume designed to vindicate herself then it might be, as you say, a ” waste” of money. I don’t think we can make that assertion until the book is actually published.



Growth In Prison Population Among Women

It's not irrelevent at all. Everyone "knew" that Capone had done much more than cheat on his business taxes, but that's all that the Feds could prove against him, and all that he was ever convicted of. By your reconning, to assume Capone had done something worse, after the trial, would also violate the "spirit of justice", no?

Based on testimony provided at her trial, I'd say everyone pretty much knows that she engaged, however petty the amount was, in insider trading. But all the government felt they could prove, was her lying about it.


Ok, point taken. Based on her behavior before, during and after the trial, however, I'd say her book was more likely to be more of the "vindication" type, meant to extract pity from the reading audience, rather than anything intended to be a true insight into the condition of women in prison today. If I'm wrong, I'll be the first to admit it. In my opinion, though, I don't think I'll be making any apologies.

the Irony

First the arguement that a person should be held accountable for a crime that they were convicted of followed by a statement that a person is guilty of crimes they have not been convicted of.

Given that she was fined $30,000, is it appropriate that she profit from her crime by writing a book about it? Why or why not?


Why would it not be "appropriate" for any criminal or anyone to write a book on anything? Mein Kampf was published and I dont have any objection to Hitler writing a book. If they would like to publish a book, go ahead. Just dont expect other's to stand idly by and allow you to spread "criminal" propaganda. Of course this is subjective as to what should be done about the "criminal" propaganda. In this case, the military isn't going to be knocking down her door because of this book and I certianly dont object to it's production.

That's why I didn't name the Congressman. In the months ahead, we'll see what happens--that is, if a prominent Congressman is charged with and convicted of crimes--especially those related to illegally raising and distributing campaign funds.

In this context, it's also ironic that House Republicans took steps to insure that a member of their leadership retain power even if indicted for criminal offenses. Equally ironic is that former President Gerald Ford chose to pardon Richard Nixon befere federal prosecutors ever had a chance to charge Nixon with crimes. It seems Republicans are good at covering their bases (or maybe something more fundamental) in advance, but the preventive pardon probably contributed to Ford's defeat in 1976.

The point is that Martha's crimes are negligible and others have gotten away with far worse.

That is not what you stated. You were dissolving any wrongdoing by Martha short of what she was convicted of.



So if they are not convicted of those crimes will you say the same for them that you are about Martha? In that they should be held accountable for the crimes they are convicted of, nothing more nothing less?



Incorrect. The Republicans took steps to insure that a member of their leadership retain power even if indicted for criminal charges. Until they are convicted does it become a criminal offense perpetrated by them. The irony is that they campaigned on this issue in that the "rule" made them the "moral" party.

I don't know what solvent one would use to dissolve Martha Stewart's alleged other "sins." I am not absolving her of anything--there's nothing that calls for absolution. Why are some so eager to proclaim her guilty of other crimes? I think there are those who are watching to much speculation on Court TV and other cable outlets.

Oh, that's easy. She isn't writing about her crime -- she is writing about her stay in prison. It might even be a good book, assuming that the writing is done well and that the theme has to do about changes that happen during and after a prison experience.

I don't expect anything worthy of the name "literature" from this. But who knows? It could turn out well, and worth the five mil.



This doesn't count because the premise is wrong. Writing about prison is very different than writing about crime. Still, many writers profit from writing about crime -- every mystery writer out there does exactly this. Should this sort of exploitation of crime be made illegal, or the profits channeled into social programs?

Say a prisoner writes about his or her crime, is that wrong? What if people want to read about the crime? Should this be disallowed? Good questions, but not the question of this situation. Stewart isn't writing about crime *and* punishment (sorry D), but about the punishment.

If she sticks to that idea, I bet it will come out well.

[1]Given that she was fined $30,000, is it appropriate that she profit from her crime by writing a book about it? Why or why not?

It's perfectly appropriate that she writes a book. There is no law proscribing it. Would I buy the book? No. I don't care for Martha Stuart, but then that's a different matter. As for profiting from her crime, she is guilty of lying to the SEC during investigation, no? That's it. She may have done more but there was insufficient evidence to convict her of it. And I'm an innocent until proven guilty person.

[2]If profiting from a crime is unacceptable, would it be legitimate if the courts required that the proceeds (or a portion of) from the book be diverted into some trust to benefit society somehow? Or is there another way to prevent such profiteering from criminal acts?

Simply put: it's not unacceptable. We have two things in this country that guarantee her right and ability to publish such a book: civil liberties and capitalism. And she can write whatever she wants in it. She can discuss at great length the injustices of the legal system and how she was a pawn, a scapegoat, whatever. It's her right. She could take all the money she earns from the book and use it to construct bronze sculptures of the SEC investigators in profane positions for all I care. It's her right. Freedom of speech and press are most important when they are the most inconvenient.