No retrial means no justice for Martha Stewart

Editor's note: Business Reform Magazine is your exclusive source for real biblical answers to real business problems.
www.businessreform.com

After yesterday's news that Martha Stewart was denied a retrial, were someone to take a poll today among people who identify themselves as Christians, it is certain that an overwhelming percentage would approve of what occurred. Stewart, after all, apparently lied to government agents (although the evidence even there was not as solid as most people would believe) and generally came across as a not-so-nice person, according to information presented during the trial.

Indeed, the articles on the verdict that have appeared in the "Christian" press demonstrate little difference between the contemporary Christian viewpoint and the opinions of most other Americans. She broke the law and should pay, or so the story goes.

Yet, there is much more to this story than what one reads in the press. I contend that the real story here is not so much what Steward did, but the scope of federal criminal law and how in the modern "justice" system, federal prosecutors can easily spin criminal charges around many normal business transactions.

The case began in the summer of 2002 when someone illegally leaked information from a Congressional committee investigating the ImClone affair, and some of that information fingered Stewart. I point out that someone committed a felony here because no U.S. attorney saw fit to investigate this clear act of lawbreaking. Soon afterwards, the press was full of false stories alleging insider trading on behalf of Stewart, with some leaks coming from grand jury testimony, another felony. (In other words, people associated with the U.S. Government committed at least two felonies, neither of which was investigated.)

TRENDING: Montana lawmaker follows Trump's lead, moves to designate Antifa as domestic terror group

With all of the damaging (and false) leaks coming from government agents, pressure mounted on Stewart to do something, so she and her attorneys met with federal investigators. It was there that she fell victim to U.S. Code, Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 47, Section 1001, which makes it a federal crime to give "false information" to federal employees.

Keep in mind, however, that this law runs only one way. Federal employees, and especially investigators are free to lie, and are even trained to do so. Furthermore, it is common for federal prosecutors to suborn false or misleading testimony. In other words, this is a law that is applied unequally.

A number of economists, including some Christians, have questioned whether or not "insider trading" should be illegal. First, if there is harm done to a company by a person with a fiduciary responsibility who engages in such transactions, it is an issue between the company and that person, not the state. Second, it would seem strange that the

New York Times and other newspaper editorialists would call for criminal sanctions against "insider trading" (as they do), yet not call for criminalizing "scoops" based on "insider information" that enable news organizations to gain an advantage in the news market.

From the post-trial remarks of the jurors, it would seem that they convicted Stewart for two reasons. The first was de facto "insider trading," a crime for which she was not charged?which alone makes the verdict a legal absurdity?and the second was the fact that she seemed to be rather unpleasant in many of her personal dealings.

The Bible clearly prohibits "perverting justice" and calls for those who hand down judgments not to be "respecters of persons." However, that is what happened in this case. Furthermore, the "false statements" provision of Section 1001 does not bind the government employees, which sets double standards of law.

While Christians often are naively apt to believe the word of a government agent, one should remember that federal investigators generally face no legal sanctions for lying. Thus, the incentives are great for government handpicked witnesses to lie.

Those who have dealt with the federal criminal system can testify firsthand about how prosecutors and federal witnesses routinely lie, cover up, withhold evidence, and generally engage in criminal behavior. Christians who are not familiar with the federal criminal system might do well to do their own investigation into it.

No doubt, many Christians cheered the conviction of Martha Stewart and her subsequent denial for a retrial. She is wealthy and does not hold political or social views that reflect those of the "Christian Right." However, she did not receive justice in her case, and if Christians are not willing to stand up for justice for people they do not like, then they too are as "postmodern" in their views of law as the rankest atheist.

RELATED: Making decisions that facilitate success

William L. Anderson, Ph.D., is assistant professor of economics at Frostburg State University in Frostburg, Maryland. He is a member of Faith Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Cumberland, Maryland. He holds his doctorate in economics from Auburn University.

He is married and has four children. Three are adopted, one from Guatemala, and two from Ethiopia. He and his family live in Cumberland, Maryland. Dr. Anderson also is an adjunct scholar with the Ludwig von Mises Institute in Auburn, Alabama, and is a regular contributor to www.mises.org and www.lewrockwell.com.
Email him.