Although I'm still not convinced she should have been prosecuted so vigorously, Martha Stewart did break the law and should be punished. Still, which sentence do you think would have been of more benefit to society?
Martha Stewart was sentenced to five months in prison, plus five months of home detention and a $30,000 fine for lying to federal authorities investigating her sale of stock in a friend's company. ...I'd've rather seen her do a year of community service than sit in a cell.[U.S. District Judge Miriam] Cedarbaum, 74, rejected Stewart's bid to avoid prison at a hearing today in New York. Stewart sought to serve her sentence in community service helping underprivileged women launch their own businesses.
In general I don't think people should be sentenced to prison time for non-violent crimes. Our society over-relies on prison to punish crimes because we think it's more humane than the obvious alternatives (scourging, indentured servitude, and so forth), but in reality our prison system isn't very humane at all.
Amen.
hln
Agreed. I doubt that the risk of five months in jail is really going to dissuade many others from trying to do what Stewart was convicted of doing. And while ten year prison sentences might do so, that doesn't seem like justice to me. Murderers and rapists much be removed from society - and I would be open to discussing far harsher sentences than they currently receive. Most non-violent criminals, on the other hand, don't pose an immediate threat to anyone's safety and I'd just as soon see them pay in a different way, especially if it can benefit others at the same time.
Prison's not supposed to be humane. It's supposed to suck so bad that you won't commit the crime because you might end up there if you do. Community service is a relatively a minor inconvenience, barely enough to deter one who knows he'll get caught.
X: I dunno, if Ms. Stewart were forced to spend 8 hours a day, five days a week, for a whole year doing community service I think it would be punishment enough.
And yes, I certainly wouldn't be soft on criminals, I just think prisons are ineffective and unpurposefully inhumane. That is, if our intent were to build up anger and resentment among criminals and have them raped, we should just say so. If, on the other hand, we just want to punish them and deter them from future crimes I think we'd be better served by simply whipping them a few times in the public square, such as it is. It would be more humane than prison, and more effective.
Two things:
1) Looks like a typo in the headline: Stweart, rather than Stewart.
2) First thing I thought when I heard the news: That's gonna be one fine-looking cell by the time she's released.
JC: Thanks for the correction. What do you think of alternative punishments other than prison, like whipping or indentured servitude? Nothing intended to leave permanent injuries, say.
I totally agree yet 5 month isn't very long. We have no idea how long she has been doing this. She wants herself sentenced now so she can get it over with but your statement is very considerable.
I think anything over three days allows somebody to really really hurt her - who knows the blind spots or which guard wants a favor from family outside in order to look away, One hour with the wrong people would be something you'd have a hard time ever getting over. Five months. Man, I hope she does some serious promising of cash to a group of big women who will protect her when the money is transfered to their auntie's out of state accounts. You know? She will buy some of the other prisoners to protect her ass for serious money put quietly into their family bank accounts. It probably already has been set up and for all you know she knows who runs the place amoung the cons and the protection money has been already paid.
I believe that martha stewart is a hoe that nobdy likes