Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Galapagos Islands -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Libbyt who wrote (51120)	3/8/2004 1:01:07 AM
From: Alan Smithee	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 57110

I really hope that there is some way that she can avoid prison....maybe an enormous fine, house arrest, and lots of community service time? As a taxpayer, I really don't want to pay to keep Martha Stewart in jail...I don't think she is a threat to society. I'm sorry that she didn't accept a plea bargain. I hate to burst the balloon Libby, but, ain't gonna happen. Not being a threat to society has nothing to do with it. In the federal system, there is no "enormous fine" as an alternative to prison time. "House arrest" has a name for it - home detention. But... Home detention is only allowed under certain circumstances,i.e., the defendant falls within a certain "zone" on the sentencing table. Under the federal system, we have the federal sentencing guidelines: ussc.gov As a starting point, you have to come up with the offense level of the crime the defendant was convicted of. In Martha's case, those crimes would be obstructon of justice, making false statements and conspiracy. Obstruction of justice, for example, has a base offense level of 14. You take that to the sentencing table: ussc.gov Then, you have to consider criminal history. I would presume Martha has no criminal history. So, she falls within Offense Level I under the guidelines. With an Offense Level I, and a base offense level of 14, Martha falls in Zone D. Based only on the obstruction conviction, she's looking at 15-21 months of confinment. In general, probation is allowed only if the defendant falls within Zone A on the table. That would not be Martha. There can be downward departures from the guidelines - for example, in the case of acceptance of responsibility. I don't see that in Martha's case. She continues to refuse to acknowledge she did anything wrong. Martha is looking at time, likely less than two years, but time nonetheless. She is not going to like it. but she should have thought about that possibility before, shouldn't she?