Stewart Request to Serve Time at Her Estate
 

LINK


I've heard of someone who has done this before. Pablo Escobar. Of course, Stewart isn't a cocaine kingpin, and doesn't have people knocked off that get in her way (well, to my knowledge). Does this sound ridiculous to anyone else, or a fair alternative?


EDIT - Fixed Quotes

WTF?? That's pretty bullshit. What's the point of punishment then if she is allowed to be "home jailed" in at 153 acre estate??

I hope she gets this.

can you post the link to that article?

I think it's bullshit. If you get sentenced to jail, you go to jail. You can't "offer" to serve something else. sheesh!!

The nerve of that bitch to even think a judge would consider something so asinine. I hope she gets anally raped on a daily basis.

I don't see anything wrong with it. Home confinement means home confinement - she just happens to have a fabulous home (which she earned legally, btw.)

Considering the impact of her sentence on many innocent employees and shareholders of MSO, enabling her to complete her sentence in the reverse order minimizes damage to the innocents. What is wrong with that?

She'd be better served using her skills in a community service sentance.


And enough with the juvenile "bitch" and "anally raped" statements :rolleyes:

For such an "enlightened" community, there sure are a ton of people acting like 12 year olds.

I'm not just picking on you, Junchbailey, every thread about Martha Stewart has turned into "What a stupid bitch, I hope she dies" type things. It's obnoxious.

I agree that her time could be put to better use. I'd prefer to have her meet with corporate executives to discuss the impact of ethical lapses upon the health of their companies. Her shareholders have suffered enormous losses due to her bad judgement in the ImClone matter.

All this hemming and hawing...
She did the crime, now she needs to do the time.
She needs to stop whining, go to jail for the 4 months, and then get back to where she belongs: running/rebuilding her company.
All this trying to avoid the inevitable is ridiculous.

4 or 5 months is such a light sentence anyways, I balked when I saw that on courtTV.

now she wants to "offer" to serve her sentence in reverse "for the good of the company/community/nation/humanity", that's just bullshit. You get convicted you go directly to jail; you do not pass go, you do not collect 200 million dollars.

it just bugs me to no end when fame and fortune are more important to the justice system than justice itself.

yes, mature language is preferred.

In any case, the courts are amenable to negotiating things like sentencing, etc. It happens all the time and it's part of what a lawyer's job entails. Nothing new here.

linkage

the way i see it is right there, those that have get.

she may not be political but she is high-profile (and maintainence)...

anyone else would have gotten more

I've said it in another thread, I'll say it again: Her crime was not violent, she is not at risk for repeat offenses, her sentence would be much more beneficial to the community if she were ordered to work a certain number of hours with an organization like Habitat for Humanity, where her skills could be put to good use.

You do the crime and you must do the time. But in a situation were the person is mega rich..etc and the crime was not violent then they should have fined her. and I don't mean 50g's. like bankrupt her, 100 million or something. now that would hurt her. 5 months or whatever she'll be back on her feet living the high life. but a massive fine would piss her right off. :D :D

These are exactly my thoughts. If this were some other rich person, this would be even funnier. I can't believe how rediculous this whole thing is. It would be like spending your jail time at a spa, no matter how you put it. Staying at her home would be a million times better, eaiser, and more convinient for her. I can't believe anyone in the justice system would even consider something like this.

if I could do crime and have home confinement... no internet would kill me... for a month... tops... You'd get to lay around all dau with no rules and eat whatever you want.

Oh and uh 48 hours a WEEK?!? thats a bit much... "You are confined to your home but tahts only for five of seven days..."

i guarantee you she'll have access to the internet, call-waiting/forwarding during those 48 hours she's allowed to work - so what's the point???

If she's allowed to serve jail-time at home, especially that much, I will be ashamed of our judicial system. Simple as that.

And it's a good thing too. She'll have to keep up with trades in the rest of her portfolio.

I personally think that any punishment she receives will be to harsh according to her since she probably feels she has done nothing wrong. After all, people lie everyday for matters much more serious and don't have to serve prison time.

I think prison would be good though since we all could continue to revel in the rhetoric that the evil white male establishment is trying to put her in her place,... err, something like in a kitchen baking cookies or something.

If this was you or me, do you think any judge would give us the time of day. Hell no. They would tell us to get our ass to prison and who the hell do we think we are asking for a different sentence. The ONLY reason is because she is RICH and FAMOUS and we treat her better then others because of it.

TOTAL BS!

slightly off topic, but I've always thought that fines should be relative to a person's income. No matter what the fine is that she could get, he problably has more money stuck between her couch cushions. If you look at a $50k fine, that's more than most people make in a year. The equivalent fine for her should be more than her average annual income, considering all income sources.

This goes with all monetary amounts payed to the state, from traffic tickets to fines like this. Seriously, what good is a fine if it doesn't actually hurt financially?

That kind of mentallity is equivalent to fascism. When we start allowing punishments to be related to income or status or power or race even, you are pushing the realm of a fascist state. It should not matter how successful you are. What she did was wrong and she should be punished for it equally to everyone else who does the same thing. Otherwise all you are punishing is the fact that she is more successful than you, NOT because she committed a crime. Why should her money be considered a crime? You tell me...

Her money isn't a crime, she's entitled to it, as long as she stays out of trouble. I personally think it's fucked up that when people who have money get a fine its like pocket change to them. Meanwhile, the regular people have to take out a second mortgage to pay a big fine.

Fines and jail time are supposed to be deterrants to crimes. How much does Stewart make in a year? 20M? 50k is 0.25% of that. If you got busted for the same crime, and a 50k fine was levied, it would fuck you up long term. Where is the equality in the system there?

If fines were set up on a sliding scale like that the effect of the fine would be equal for all people.

NO, fines and jail times ARE NOT Deterrants. They are punishments. And if you don't want to pay the fine or serve the time, don't do the crime and you won't have to take out a second mortgage.

Ok, if it's a punishment, shouldn't all people be punished equally. Compare the effects of a 50k fine on a person who makes 50k/yr and a 50k fine on someone who makes 20M/yr.

In absolute dollars it is equal, but the effect (the actual punishment) is that the guy who makes 50k/yr lost all his money for a whole year. If you take a 40hr work week over 52 weeks/yr, that's 2080 hours or work. The 20M/yr dude makes 50k in 5.2 hours. Is that an equal punishment? Ask yourself if it is going to make a difference in that person's life..

Quote:

And if you don't want to pay the fine or serve the time, don't do the crime and you won't have to take out a second mortgage.

I thought you said it's not a deterrant, but now you are saying that. Which is it? What about all the rhetoric politicians talk about "getting tough on crime" by increasing penalties aren't they trying to use them as deterrants?

It is not a deterrant. It is a choice. You can choose to commit a crime or you can choose not to commit a crime. Penalties are not intended to be deterrants. The fact of the matter is that it comes down to choice. People who commit crimes know that is against the law, yet does that stop them. No. When they hit the streets again, did the fines or imprisonment stop them from doing it again. Recitivism is upwards of 70%. We put people in prison to punish, not reform or deter. Yes, for those of us who are good law-abiding citizens, a penalty may be construed as being a deterrant, because we may say that we do not want to go to prison, but in reality, we know stealing from a bank (i.e.) is wrong.

I'm shocked this issue even went to trial in the first place. I'm no fan of Martha Stewart but it was a wich hunt in the first place.

The media makes it that way because they make money off of it. Sad but true.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KellyC
[B]WTF?? That's pretty bullshit. What's the point of punishment then if she is allowed to be "home jailed" in at 153 acre estate??

my thoughts exactly......screw her and make her stay in prison the entire time....she deserves it especially after watching one of her shows.....omg I almost killed myself it was so bad.

Actually, in accordance to proper etiquette, a (sand)wich hunt is usually preceded by a (so)up entree.

Interesting. Taxes are progressive, but punishments are...not. Just noticing.

Ok, so I can't spell. =)

I agree, Nazggul. Look, what she did was wrong and she deserves to be punished. But her fame and money have, for the most part, worked against her in this trial!

And Martha Stewart has her lawyers trying every trick in the book to keep her out of prison - but she's not trying anything that isn't available to everyone! She's simply using the system to her advantage. The only reason you don't hear about the tens of thousands of other people who do the same thing, is that they don't have CNN following them around 24/7. The only positive difference her money made was to allow her to afford the best lawyers money could buy. Granted, that's a pretty big positive... :)

The thing that really makes me want to slap Stewart though, is that she honestly thinks she's done no wrong. She should have admitted what she did was wrong, and offer to spend all of her time and money benefitting society in some way. Be sincere and apologetic, and work on something like a battered women's shelter that can get women back on their feet and in a professional environment - that type of thing. That may have kept her out of prison, and saved her precious image in everyone's eyes. Instead, she's just throwing chum to the sharks with her idiotic actions.

As said above, with all her experience she should be forced to use the skills she's acquired to help other people. 2 months - 5 days a week - 8 hours a day in a community center helping out those a lot less fortunate than her would go a lot further than sentencing her to a millenium on Alcatraz. Couple that with a fine and she'll have done more than pay back her debt to society.

What she did was wrong in all respects but jail time does little if anything at all to fit the crime. After she sits in a cell for a few months she returns back to her regular lifestyle and learned nothing.

Bitch. She should get what she fucking deserves!!! Can any of us knock somebody off and request to be sent home for 50 years???

I think not.