Say WHAT?

[elfs]

Prosecutors in the Martha Stewart securities fraud case are now saying that if they get a conviction on securities fraud, Miss Stewart will automatically be eligible for a subsequent conviction for proclaiming her innocence

What the FUCK? I thought innocent until proven guilty was the law of the land. Even if someone is ultimately found guilty of a crime, you don't go on to punish them for insisting that you treat them in accordance with all the respect and rights accorded the innocent before the establishment of guilt.

The prosecutors claim, "Well, this is different. In an era of non-stop news coverage, Miss Stewart's pronouncement of innocence amounts to an attempt to manipulate her stock price further." No, it is not different. Martha Stewart is a citizen of the United States and has every right to proclaim her innocence, in public, as loudly as she wishes, and nobody should have the power to punish her for doing so. She has not yet been found guilty. She is assumed to be innocent, and she can say so. That is her right.

Comments

[mouser.livejournal.com]

I blame KMart. Sort of.

I've had this weird feeling that someone was out to kill KMart a while ago, or to drive it's stock down, and when Ms. Stewart stepped up and said that she wasn't going to pull her products from thier stores it really pissed someone off.

Just my suspicious mind...

[antonia-tiger.livejournal.com]

It looks as though "it might influence the share price" is used as a reason for a lot of messing around with what people can say.

It's the standard excuse from my ISP for why they don't tell anyone whether some service was broken, even when customers have noticed, and been discussing the symptoms in a newsgroup that gets into the Google archive.

Of course, if saying I'm innocent is something the prosecution objects to because it affects the share price, I'd be tempted to use the same argument against their statements, since it reduces the share price.

Not, of course, that there aren't crooks in the stocks and shares business. If some accounts can be believed, the business is fundamentally dishonest.

[kyriani.livejournal.com]

While I abhor Martha Stuart, everything I have read and heard about this whole trial has been a fargin farce. Our legal system has really gone down the drain if they can say that someone proclaiming they are innocent means they are actually guilty. I absolutely agree with you, thats supposed to be the whole foundation of our legal system, that someone is innocent until proven guilty. Lately though it seems as if people are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Makes me want to re-write the whole damned system.
What the hell happened to people thinking for ourselves? I mean I just cannot see *how* someone proclaiming they are innocent would affect my opinion of their company's stock price... Sigh.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

I'm prying to figure out the logic behind this one and I just can't. I can come close. You can say anything you want, so long as it's true. You can't always lie without consequences. In the eyes of the law, if she is convicted, she is guilty, so the satement of innocence is not a true statement, and thus not protected. But that's a pretty incredible stretch.

Is there precendent for this? Most people refuse to talk to the press about pending cases, she has gone the other route and participated in the circus that this has become.

Interesting

[genericjoe.livejournal.com]

I completely agree they are just out to crucify her. Today I ran a cross this interesting acticle () that purports to tell what "really happened."

If true, it's intriguing to me. How many scandals (policial or otherwise) lately could have been avoided by someone just owning up to the fact they screwed up or overreacted?