What does the confiction of Martha Stewart have to do with the rise of American
Totalitarianism? As many cheer and jeer, why should we worry about the fate of the ”nation’s homemaker”?
In federal court, if
you speak in your own defense and are subsequently convicted, you are guilty of lying, of perjury. Imagine yourself wrongly accused,
confronted by ambiguous evidence. Wouldn’t you want to speak for yourself? By twisted judicial logic, an innocent person who maintains
his or her innocense MUST have been lying if convicted, because the system is held as infallable. How many of us find it suspicious when
people don’t speak in their own defence. We believe you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. As it happens, you can
be compelled not to testify for yourself — by the threat of perjury.
Still, this is not what happened to Martha.
Long before any
of us had heard anything about the case, Martha Stewart was suspected by the government of securities fraud. During the investigation,
she was interviewed by the FBI. More than likely, she lied to those agents of the Homeland. That’s bad, right? Maybe, but is it actually
a crime?
Note that the government’s case on the real crime was dismissed. However, on the charges of the heinous crime of lying to a
federal agent, Martha was convicted. Remember, she wasn’t under oath. She had not been charged with a crime. There is no transcript or
other verbatim record of the interview. She did not commit perjury.
Now that she has been convicted, Martha needs to be careful about
maintaining her innocence. She can’t be charged with perjury, but her lack of remorse (for a crime she doesn’t believe she committed)
can be held against her in sentencing.
What are you going to do when a federal agent appears on your doorstep and asks you if you’ve
ever smoked pot, or exceeded the speed limit. Or what you think of the perpetual War on Terrorism? Think twice about lying to the agents
of the Homeland.
