I agree that everyone would have been better off if Martha Stewart had only had to make restitution, i.e., repay her ill-gotten gain from the trade, plus fines and penalties. She'd have been financially punished for a financial misdeed, but not put in the stocks for public amusement. The other investors would actually have gotten money to replace what she supposedly took from them,and the taxpayers would not have spent a bundle on a lengthy trial and then prison.
Hey, I'm going to be supporting Martha Stewart! That's just not right!
Anyway, it reminds me of the French Revolution (only without blood). The Have-Nots can get really gleefully ugly when the chance finally comes to get revenge on the Haves. Martha Stewart was the epitome of rich white aristocracy, and they dragged her to the guillotine in the town square.
I was born a Have-Not and followed in my family's footsteps for many years before I figured out that we do not live in a feudal system, that somebody having theirs doesn't mean I can't have mine, and that if I don't have a big enough piece of pie, I can bake my own! It is not a zero-sum game! I finally fought my way out of poverty into solid middle class (maybe upper-middle if I stay off ebay and keep my own money), and I say Good Going! to Martha or anybody else who makes a success of it. Her being rich never made me poor.
Our legal system doesn't seem to treat people at either extreme of the socio-economic spectrum very justly.
Ooops. I'm rambling again. Please, Somebody! Stop me before I write again!