Next weekend Martha Stewert gets out of jail. Since the court system in America has its flaws and releases violent criminals without rehabilitating them, has the judicial system cured Martha of lying in court? Will she strike again?

Question:

Is the American public safe from Martha's lying ways when she is released?


Martha Stewart Leaves Prison

Is the American public safe from Martha's lying ways when she is released?

This at best a tongue-in-cheek question, but I'll try to give you a straight answer.

I for one don't think Martha Stewart should have gone to jail in the first place. It seems to be ok (perhaps ironic) if the government, for our own good of course, lies to us about why it took us to war in Iraq. Yet when Martha Stewart lies to the government, that's a felony and worthy of placing her behind bars.

Martha's realese will in no way keep me awake at night worring about a dangerous criminal being on the loose.

When Ken Lay and politicians like Tom DeLay (hey, that rhymes ) go to jail, then I'll have renewed faith in the criminal justice system.

Is the American public safe from Martha's lying ways when she is released?

No. America is not safe, not safe at all.

I use spoons instead of whisks for stirring. I use redneck lettuce in my salads instead of arugula. I use Crisco instead of EVOO. I buy my bread at the local Wal-Mart (yes, I use the store brand) - it even LOOKS like a loaf of sliced bread. Who is giong to protect my way of life from these dangerous intrusions? Until Ms. Stewart is willing to forgive my towels not matching my curtains, I say let her rot!!!

Seriously, she lied to investigators and there are consequences. The SEC and the feds need to crack down on dirty-dealings in the boardroom. Her punishment was severe, but probably not overly-so. She's paid her debt and I wish her luck.

Come on now. Martha Stewart had a choice. When Investigators asked her questions, she could have told the truth or lied. She choose to lie and she got caught in the lie. As a result she went to jail.

Is the American public safe from Martha's lying ways when she is released?

If anyone has learned their lesson about lying to investigators and Impeding an investigation it is Martha Stewart. And, if the public at-large learned from this, and such lying is even remotely reduced, then this incident served a greater purpose.

Are we safe? Obviously we are. Though women across the country will once again be made to feel as if there are inadequate house wives.

The IRS has long liked to get high profile people in trouble for tax evasion--Willie Nelson is a name that comes to mind. That's because it scares all those ordinary Joes and Jills out there into paying their taxes. I have a problem with the government making a target of someone because they are famous and using that person as an example to scare other people.

Edited for clarity.

I have a similar problem with it. I would prefer that the government prosecute all liars. Make a false report, get a charge, give false testimony, get a charge, lie to investigators, get a charge. If someone's statements during investigations, in court, or in official filings can be proven to be false that that person should be prosecuted. For whatever reason they do not do this. Why this is so would probably be an excellent concept for a new topic though.

I can go along with this with a couple of conditions. First, police agencies would not be able to lie in the process of interrogation of suspects and second, all interrogations would have to be video taped-- a practice that would keep the police honest. My complaint about the government lying to citizens is broader and deeper than my Iraq illustration. As the saying goes, "what's good for the goose is good for the gander."

I find myself in the very uncomfortable postion of actually agreeing with BoF on this one. I too have a problem with the government "making an example" of someone to teach the rest of us a lesson of some sorts. Martha Stewart was prosecuted in my opinion for purely political reasons and that was wrong. I don't know if she was guilty of insider trading or not, but apparently not since she wasn't convicted of that, but rather for lying to investigators. That's quite a strange charge, particularly in light of the fact she wasn't convicted of the actual crimes they were investigating. It seems to be to be the equivalent of telling a police officer who's pulled you over that no, you weren't speeding even though he thought you were. You get to court and they throw out the speeding charge because they can't prove it, but then they turn around and accuse you of lying to the police officer! Oh well, maybe I'm not up fully on this case and if someone wants to correct me with the facts of the matter, I'm open to that.

Having said that, I think Ms Stewart is going to be fine. I've heard all the stories about her not being a very nice person and treating others badly, but there's no question she's a remarkable person for what she's been able to accomplish. People can make fun of her all they want, but there's no denying that she was able to successfully identify a market niche and turn that into an enormously successful business enterprise. She's one very bright person, there can be no denial of that. So, she's done her time and now she can go on with her life. Good for her, I wish her the best.

Is the American public safe from Martha's lying ways when she is released?

Aquilla and BoF couldn't have said it better. If the goal is to make an "example" out of someone, you better be sure you don't have any "counter-examples". In this case, the government just appears capricious. Some people might "straighten up" because of the lying thing but many others will recognize it as just an "example" and not directly relevant to their lying lives. If there's only a fraction of a percent chance that lying to investigators will get you thrown into jail for lying, what is the mostly likely thing the potential liar will do? (say that 10 times real fast )

I could go along with that, at least in regards to video taping interrogations. I am rather surprized that all agencies don't do this, as it would be a good legal protection for them to avoid charges of sexual harassment, brutality, etc.

As for not being allowed to lie to the suspect. I can't go with that, at least no completely. As someone who has been in the position of having to interrogate others to determine the truth I can tell you that lies are usually the best approach.

"Look man, I know where you are coming from, I've been down the same roads. But now is the time to make a clean break and get a fresh start. It starts with the truth."

"OK, we are done here. You buddy Alex confessed. He told us you did it. You want us to go with that or do you have another version of the events?"

These are interrogation techniques. I do not see a problem with them. However, there are lines you don't cross. You don't tell someone you will not prosecute if they confess, you do not tell someone you well beat them if they don't confess, etc.

It does need to be a two way street, but we cannot take away all the tools available to law enforcement unless we are prepared to give up on the idea of enforcing laws. IMHO

I think we are not safe when Martha Stewert goes free. After all, she took a shot of jack daniels on the Conan O'Brien show. What kind of message of her moral character does that show. Reagan called the Soviet Union the "Evil Empire"... well I think Omnimedia is the "Evil Empire." The judicial system has failed to keep me safe!

P.S. Next weekend, I will lock my doors and stay in my home. I will also keep making jokes and see if people take me seriously.

P.S.S. I know if the rules can include a thread about writing a pointless, non-constructive story chain... it can include a light-hearted thread on issues.