|
|
I'm still flabbergasted by the results of the Martha
Stewart case. It's hard to tell what the most important points
about it are. So she lied to federal investigators? For
that she deserves jail time? I'm not saying it's okay to lie, but
jail time seems undeservedly harsh--a fine would have been more
appropriate. A more important point is that all
she's been convicted of was lying
to federal investigators. Usually, this is a charge that's added
on to criminal charges so that prosecuters can "stick it" to the
criminal and add to their punishment. But in Stewart's case,
there is no other crime to add it on to--no insider trading, no
securities fraud, nothing. Other than the lies to the
investigators, there is no evidence that she did anything else wrong.
If somebody lies to me, I can't take them to court without
showing that the lie actually caused me some wrong or harm, such as
damaging my reputation, or persuading me to buy something that I
wouldn't have bought if the truth had been told. Even then, I
couldn't make them go to jail over it. Do federal investigators
have special "rights" and privileges that the rest of us ordinary
citizens don't have?
REASON Magazine columnists
made much of the comments of
one of the jurors about Stewart's arrogance, and that her
conviction was a victory for the little guys and small investors.
Sure, I understand that arrogance is not a desireable trait, and nobody
likes it when other people think they're better than the rest of us,
but when did it become a crime to be arrogant, assuming that Stewart
really was arrogant, and it's not just a misperception by the juror?
Furthermore, there was no evidence that Stewart did anybody else
any harm with her actions. One wonders if the jurors have a good
grasp of how the stock market actually works, or if they simply assumed
that Stewart's sale of stock must have necessarily been at the expense
of the
buyers of the stock. Perhaps a larger implication of the juror's
comments was simply the view that successful people such as Martha
Stewart must have somehow achieved their success by hurting other
people. If so, that would be unfortunate, because it would mean
that Martha was being punished simply because she was successful, and
her actions, moral or immoral, in achieving that success are
unimportant or inconsequential.
Federal investigators and prosecutors probably feel vindicated by
the conviction, but since no real harm was done by Stewart's actions,
the conviction has not made the rest of us any safer. If
anything, the rest of us are in more danger, because you never know
when the federal government will come after you, whether or not you've
done anything wrong. They should spend more of their time (and
our tax dollars) going after people who are truly criminal, who have
actually done some harm to other people.
Perhaps the prosecutors want to send a "message" to other CEOs
with Stewart's conviction, but if so, exactly what message are they
sending? That they will do anything necessary to convict
their targets, regardless of any wrongdoing? Or that you're
better off not volunteering any information to federal
investigators? Perhaps the real message is that more Americans
are willing to let their government brand people as criminal and punish
them without requiring proof of any harm or wrongdoing. Have we
come so far as a society that we no longer care if the government is
actually doing or trying to do anything to truly protect its citizens
from crime?
I can only hope that I'm reading too much into this case.
|
The Martha Stewart Case
