| Tu Quo is Inadequate |
9 June 2003
|
Martha Stewart is Indicted
It is said that under America's grand jury system, a decent prosecutor can get a ham sandwich indicted. So, the news that Martha Stewart was indicted on obstruction of justice and a few other things related to her ImClone stock trading required several grains of salt. What appalls most are the faux feminists who complain that she's facing prosecution while the boys at Enron, etc., are not. The tu quo argument did not work at Nuremburg, and it should work in this case.
First off all, Martha Stewart's case is a much simpler one than the Enron debacle. Rushing a case into court before it is prepared would be a travesty against justice and presecutorial incompetence. Prosecution in her case is easier, so it came faster.
Second, Andrew Flatow of Enron has been indicted. That he and his cronies are still free is a testament to what sort of lawyers money can buy -- still so long as it does not buy judges and juries, one is content if not happy.
Third, letting one suspect off the hook simply because another has evaded justice is a miserable sort of argument. The Nazi defendants argued that the Soviet prosecutors did many of the same things, and therefore, could not justly condemn the third Reich's leaders. By all means, then, let Fat Hermann and the rest walk? Rubbish.
Fourth, the claim that Ms. Stewart is being put upon because of her wealth is laughable. Of course, she is being prosecuted because she is rich. Poor people don't have the money it takes to commit the sort of crime of which she stands accused.
In a nutshell, if she did what prosecutors say she did, putting her in jail is justice. If she did not, then a court will exonerate her. Recovering her reputation will remain a problem, but might one suggest fixing it with a hot glue gun?