Law School Discussion

Martha gets 5 months

Ginatio

Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #10 on: July 16, 2004, 08:51:18 AM »
Nah. I don't buy it. She came off as an elitist female dog, and that's why she got the short end of the stick... not necessarily because she was female.

I mean, if Oprah or Rosie O'Donnell or another rich, powerful, strong public female figure were in this situation, I don't think she would've been as demonized as Martha.


And I am so hesitant to throw this out there, because I'm way too tired to get into a debate about feminism, but I believe that Martha gets the short end because she is a powerful, tough, successful woman.  I wonder if this whole thing would have gone this far if she was a man.  I'm not saying she didn't do anything wrong; I'm just saying the double standard is still out there.

MaroonOut2005

  • ****
  • 1657
  • Attending: Notre Dame
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #11 on: July 16, 2004, 08:57:34 AM »
The whole problem the first time around was the arrogant nature of Martha's lawyers.  That tried a ignore style defense, trying to pretend the charges against her weren't worth the time to defend.  Well, they were wrong.

I think five months is adaquate, considering she was found guilty on four different charges, including lieing to invesigators and obstruction of justice.  Its hard to say this happened because she was famous.  She broke the law, had a fair trial of her peers, attempted a stupid legal strategy and failed.  Most excepted her to get between 10 and 12 months due to the severity, she was lucky to only get five.

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

At least she gets an appeal.  Just hope her lawyer(s) are worth their snuff.  What kills me is that I would be surprised if that DMX guy (or whatever his name is) gets less time for stealing and crashing cars, having a bunch of crack, and impersonating federal officers, and Martha loses her image, a big chunk of her business, and has to go to jail for lying to an investigator.  Not that it's right to lie or anything, the irony just kills me.

daynee

  • ****
  • 322
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #12 on: July 16, 2004, 08:58:12 AM »
Nah. I don't buy it. She came off as an elitist female dog, and that's why she got the short end of the stick... not necessarily because she was female.

I mean, if Oprah or Rosie O'Donnell or another rich, powerful, strong public female figure were in this situation, I don't think she would've been as demonized as Martha.

Hang on -  she deserves to be punished more because she's an "elitist female dog"?  That doesn't quite seem fair.  I thought people should be convicted of crimes because of their actions, not personalities...

And, would she even be considered an "elitist female dog" (or "bastard") if she were a man?  (S)he would probably be applauded for his shrewd and cunning business skills.

I'm just saying...

MaroonOut2005

  • ****
  • 1657
  • Attending: Notre Dame
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #13 on: July 16, 2004, 09:01:39 AM »
Ken Lay was just recently indicted on several charges, including some that seem erroneous simply to bump of the prison term.  He deserves it, though.  And Bush was never convicted, or even charged, with anything.  Besides, Bush is accused by some of his critics of insider trading.  Martha was not found guilty of insider trading, but instead lieing to prosecutors and obstruction of justice. 

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

This whole thing is BS!  What about the Keating 5 (includes John McCain) who looted the savings and loans industry in the 80's?  Or Ken Lay, or our own President who did the same thing back in Texas? Make an example out of them.  Our system is a joke.

Ginatio

Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #14 on: July 16, 2004, 09:06:27 AM »
I'm not saying she deserved it, but in the context of public opinion deciding trials, you can see why her public persona and relations may have been a factor. I agree that she should be tried on her actions, but the conversation was about public sentiment decided celebrity cases more so than the merits of the case...

If she were a man, then yes, I think she would have still been pegged as an elitist bastard. Business skills are separate from how the public perceives you... you could be one of the best businessmen in the world, but if your public relations sucks, then you could find yourself without any support or sympathy if you're ever in Matha's shoes...

Hang on -  she deserves to be punished more because she's an "elitist female dog"?  That doesn't quite seem fair.  I thought people should be convicted of crimes because of their actions, not personalities...

And, would she even be considered an "elitist female dog" (or "bastard") if she were a man?  (S)he would probably be applauded for his shrewd and cunning business skills.

I'm just saying...

MaroonOut2005

  • ****
  • 1657
  • Attending: Notre Dame
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #15 on: July 16, 2004, 09:11:00 AM »
I disagree about the "elitist" female dog observation, to an extent.  While I do agree it may have been a factor, her ultimate downfall was her rediculous legal strategy.  She tried to pretend she was "above" the charges, and failed.  Her legal team didn't even put up much of a fight to give the impression that Martha had nothing to worry about.  They were wrong.  If this case was about anything, its not about people in power getting a bad rap.  Its about proving that no one is above the law, no one can lie to investigators and get away with it, and no one has the right obstruct evidence.

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

daynee

  • ****
  • 322
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #16 on: July 16, 2004, 09:15:07 AM »
I get what you're saying.  I agree that the public tried and convicted her before her trial even began.  I also agree that the public perception of her is what it is because she's a tough cookie, and the public can't handle a business woman who "acts like a man."  I'm just saying that I don't believe she would have been demonized by the public had she been a man, because of the double standard that exists in our culture.

You agree she'd have been pegged as an "elitist bastard" were she a man.  What I'm saying is that it would be condidered a complimentary title for men.

I'm not saying she deserved it, but in the context of public opinion deciding trials, you can see why her public persona and relations may have been a factor. I agree that she should be tried on her actions, but the conversation was about public sentiment decided celebrity cases more so than the merits of the case...

If she were a man, then yes, I think she would have still been pegged as an elitist bastard. Business skills are separate from how the public perceives you... you could be one of the best businessmen in the world, but if your public relations sucks, then you could find yourself without any support or sympathy if you're ever in Matha's shoes...

Hang on -  she deserves to be punished more because she's an "elitist female dog"?  That doesn't quite seem fair.  I thought people should be convicted of crimes because of their actions, not personalities...

And, would she even be considered an "elitist female dog" (or "bastard") if she were a man?  (S)he would probably be applauded for his shrewd and cunning business skills.

I'm just saying...

MaroonOut2005

  • ****
  • 1657
  • Attending: Notre Dame
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #17 on: July 16, 2004, 09:19:10 AM »
I don't understand this "it was the public that tried her" notion.  It seemed to me that the majority of the public was on Martha's side.  She had no one that really desperately wanted her to go to jail, but she did have avid supporters across the country.  Martha is in jail because she broke the law, not because of the public.

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

daynee

  • ****
  • 322
  • 2.84/162 University of Richmond 1L - FINALLY!!!
    • View Profile
Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #18 on: July 16, 2004, 09:22:04 AM »
I don't necessarily disagree with you.  I will admit, I know very little about specific facts in her case.  A lot of where I am coming from started way before she was ever accused of anything.  Much of the public percieves her negatively, and I believe this negative perception comes from a double standard imposed on women.  I'm saying that perhaps the whole issue wouldn't have even come to trial or been such a big deal if she were a man.  

How she or her laywers handled the case once she was accused is another matter enitrely.

I disagree about the "elitist" female dog observation, to an extent.  While I do agree it may have been a factor, her ultimate downfall was her rediculous legal strategy.  She tried to pretend she was "above" the charges, and failed.  Her legal team didn't even put up much of a fight to give the impression that Martha had nothing to worry about.  They were wrong.  If this case was about anything, its not about people in power getting a bad rap.  Its about proving that no one is above the law, no one can lie to investigators and get away with it, and no one has the right obstruct evidence.

Thanks and Gig 'Em,
Jason

Quote
I don't understand this "it was the public that tried her" notion.  It seemed to me that the majority of the public was on Martha's side.  She had no one that really desperately wanted her to go to jail, but she did have avid supporters across the country.  Martha is in jail because she broke the law, not because of the public.

Yes, she has a lot of supporters, and she also has a lot of people who dislike her.  The negative perception started way before this trial.

Re: Martha gets 5 months
« Reply #19 on: July 16, 2004, 09:25:56 AM »
At least she gets an appeal.  Just hope her lawyer(s) are worth their snuff.  What kills me is that I would be surprised if that DMX guy (or whatever his name is) gets less time for stealing and crashing cars, having a bunch of crack, and impersonating federal officers, and Martha loses her image, a big chunk of her business, and has to go to jail for lying to an investigator.  Not that it's right to lie or anything, the irony just kills me.

Yeah, because if DMX (Earl Simmons) loses his image if found guilty for his alleged actions it isn't important. In that case Robert Downey Jr, Charlie Sheen, NHL star Kevin Stevens, and Nascar driver Samuel Potashnick should really steam your carrots because all allegedly found guilty of possession heroin and/or crack cocaine and violence and the only one who served a "significant" amount of jail time was Robert Downey, Jr.

If Martha is guilty she should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the judicial system (no more because she's a celebrity and no less because she's a celebrity) but Martha is being used as an example/attempt to crack down on corporate scandal.But are we really suprised by this?  ;)