Accredited by the Accrediting Commission of the Distance Education and Training Council, which is listed by the United States Department of Education as a nationally recognized accrediting agency.
Marie Loggie wrote:
I'm glad you chose to cover this particular issue. I was curious as to how they figure out the time and this explanation was really clear.
Maybe I am thinking emotionally instead of with my head, but even though by this sentencing standard she got a good deal, it still seems that the fallout she is experiencing is rather harsh for her deeds.
As a felon she will never be able to be on the board of a corporation, right? Even her own company? Which if you look at other cases like Buddy Cianci in Rhode Island in 1984 who was indicted for extortion, assault with a dangerous weapon, kidnapping, conspiracy and simple assault who entered a plea of nolo contendere to one count of assault with a dangerous weapon and one count of simple assault, the remaining charges were dismissed. He was sentenced to 5 years on the assault with a dangerous weapon and one year for the simple assault -- both suspended and he was on probation for 5 years. So the biggest loss for him was that they made him vacate the office of Mayor. HOWEVER, Buddy was a popular mayor even though the common folk KNEW he had ties to organized crime they liked him because he revitalized downtown Providence. The climate was better for him. He got re-elected when he got done with his probation. I know this is a little like comparing oranges and apples but I think Martha lost a lot more for her deeds. Granted she was dealing with Federal crimes, but a citizen is a citizen is a citizen....things should be more equitable.
An anonymous visitor wrote:
Very interesting and informative. Well presented. Thank you
Maggie Probst wrote:
Can you clarify how Blakely v Washington can effect Martha Stewart's possible appeal?
I understood the judge in Blakely imposed a much longer sentence than the Federal Guidelines based on circumstances he thought (and treated as fact without the jury doing so being the fundamental issue here) were so aggravating as to allow him to impose a much stiffer sentence.
In Martha's situation, the judge imposed the lowest possible sentence
Lee wrote:
Very informative, I really thought she would do more time. I also thought the home detention ludicrous until it was explained.
Lori Gustofik wrote:
Thanks for the clear and concise explanation. It gives me a better understanding of the sentencing guidelines and now makes perfect sense!
