Yahoo! has an article about an interview with Martha Stewart that is running in Vanity Fair. I have to take issue with some things that Martha said.
Martha Stewart says in a new interview that her nickname in prison was M. Diddy, that house arrest is “hideous” and that her prosecution was about bringing her down “to scare other people.”
In the interview, Stewart tells Vanity Fair magazine she agrees with those who say her crime — lying about a personal stock sale — is far different from massive corporate scandals such as Enron, WorldCom and Tyco.
“Of course that is what it’s all about,” Vanity Fair quotes Stewart as saying. “Bring ’em down a notch, to scare other people. If Martha can be sent to jail, think hard before you sell that stock.”
I most certainly agree that her crime was different than others and not of the same magnitude as others, but that doesn’t mean that she shouldn’t be punished. She knew what she was doing and she did so for relatively little money for a person of her wealth.
I don’t feel badly for this. If you break the law you must be prepared for the consequences of your actions.
Hubris is a good word to use with her. She deserves everything she got handed to her.
It seems that her jail time didn’t knock any of the hubris out of her system.
It is the lying and lack of remorse that irritate me the most.
I still say if Martha had just told us all, “I sold the stock in knee jerk panic reaction.” We would have all understood and said, know the feeling and understand. But to repeatedly lie under oath? Don’t know the feeling and don’t understand.
Cindra
I agree. Just because a crime may be a different magnitude than other similarly-timed crimes does not mean it should go unpunished. Likewise, (and yet unrelated) just because drug use is usually not a major crime does not mean it should go unpunished — if potheads or Martha want to change the laws, go ahead and try. But don’t complain about being punished for breaking the law.