the daily snivel
It's time to get tough on crime
As I'm sure nearly everyone in North America now knows, Martha Stewart has been sentenced to five months imprisonment after she was convicted of of conspiracy for "willfully and knowingly" working with her broker to make false statements, and guilty of obstructing justice by lying to the Securities and Exchange Commission. That is, she was not convicted of insider trading. That charge was dismissed. Instead, she was convicted for lying when she said she had previously arranged with her broker to sell her shares of ImClone when they dropped below $60. In allegedly selling her shares with insider information (that the FDA had rejected ImClone's cancer drug), she saved herself approximately $51,000.
I'm definitely not saying that this is undue, but I am still marveling at the attention Martha Stewart has attracted for her relatively minor offences compared to the obscene plunder of California's energy system, employee pension funds, and shareholders' investments, that occurred while Kenneth Lay was CEO of Enron. I doubt very much that Martha Stewart's actions have inflicted any loss of public confidence in the economy, leastwise not nearly so much as the creative financial looting that occurred at Enron. So while I am pleased to see that white collar and corporate criminals are facing penalties for their actions, I am very concerned about proportionality. Now that Kenneth Lay has finally been indicted, I actually want to be assured that his prosecution will be every bit as vigorous as Martha's. I don't think accused persons should be publicly tarred before they are fairly convicted, but the axe has been extended for Martha and, really, for doing so very little that it leaves me smacking for justice now that a real corporate crook (I mean, alleged corporate crook) has been nabbed.
Enron founder Kenneth Lay was indicted last week on 11 criminal counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud and making false statements to banks. As someone with a great interest in criminal law (and as someone just a little more learned on the subject than your average bear), I do feel that those who call for tough sentences for offenders -- who feel that we need to get "tough" on crime and stop coddling offenders" as the only sane way to reduce offence rates -- focus much more on street crime and think very little of the crimes that are committed in boardrooms and by people in positions of great power, great trust, and great responsibility, who ought to know better and have no excuse for their actions other than greed. These crimes are carefully and meticulously planned (that is to say, premeditated), heavily rationalized, denied vehemently when detected, and radically change the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people. How many workers and investors lost their savings when Enron imploded? How many peoples are now without pension plans for their retirements? Is this not a great, or greater crime than murder?
If you hold up a bank (and don't kill anyone), you're still looking at years in prison if caught and convicted. Without going farther than your local news headlines or Google, you can see how sternly the courts deal with those who steal from others. The public demands this. In Georgia, for example, the minimum for armed robbery is 10 years. In Massechusets, you're roughly looking at a minimum of 5 years. In Canada, robbery (with a firearm) has a minimum penalty of four years.
What I'm getting at is that plundering billions of dollars from states, from investors, and from workers, is at least as violent (I would say far worse) than armed robbery. In contrast with losing the contents of wallet, or a bank losing funds that are federally insured, victims may walk away from such a crime with almost nothing, and have little recourse.
If Martha Stewart gets five months, then Kenneth Lay had better get the chair.
I'm definitely not saying that this is undue, but I am still marveling at the attention Martha Stewart has attracted for her relatively minor offences compared to the obscene plunder of California's energy system, employee pension funds, and shareholders' investments, that occurred while Kenneth Lay was CEO of Enron. I doubt very much that Martha Stewart's actions have inflicted any loss of public confidence in the economy, leastwise not nearly so much as the creative financial looting that occurred at Enron. So while I am pleased to see that white collar and corporate criminals are facing penalties for their actions, I am very concerned about proportionality. Now that Kenneth Lay has finally been indicted, I actually want to be assured that his prosecution will be every bit as vigorous as Martha's. I don't think accused persons should be publicly tarred before they are fairly convicted, but the axe has been extended for Martha and, really, for doing so very little that it leaves me smacking for justice now that a real corporate crook (I mean, alleged corporate crook) has been nabbed.
Enron founder Kenneth Lay was indicted last week on 11 criminal counts, including wire fraud, securities fraud and making false statements to banks. As someone with a great interest in criminal law (and as someone just a little more learned on the subject than your average bear), I do feel that those who call for tough sentences for offenders -- who feel that we need to get "tough" on crime and stop coddling offenders" as the only sane way to reduce offence rates -- focus much more on street crime and think very little of the crimes that are committed in boardrooms and by people in positions of great power, great trust, and great responsibility, who ought to know better and have no excuse for their actions other than greed. These crimes are carefully and meticulously planned (that is to say, premeditated), heavily rationalized, denied vehemently when detected, and radically change the lives of hundreds if not thousands of people. How many workers and investors lost their savings when Enron imploded? How many peoples are now without pension plans for their retirements? Is this not a great, or greater crime than murder?
If you hold up a bank (and don't kill anyone), you're still looking at years in prison if caught and convicted. Without going farther than your local news headlines or Google, you can see how sternly the courts deal with those who steal from others. The public demands this. In Georgia, for example, the minimum for armed robbery is 10 years. In Massechusets, you're roughly looking at a minimum of 5 years. In Canada, robbery (with a firearm) has a minimum penalty of four years.
What I'm getting at is that plundering billions of dollars from states, from investors, and from workers, is at least as violent (I would say far worse) than armed robbery. In contrast with losing the contents of wallet, or a bank losing funds that are federally insured, victims may walk away from such a crime with almost nothing, and have little recourse.
If Martha Stewart gets five months, then Kenneth Lay had better get the chair.
