Opinion
 

Martha Stewart got off easy

By Paige Nieto

Martha Stewart was sentenced to only five months in jail despite her actions with her ImClone stocks. Ever the celebrity and conscious of her public image, Stewart is said to have smiled bravely into the camera and promised that she would be back. She is also expected to appeal the sentence, even though it has the bare minimum for her crime.

The question is, why bother appealing at all? She received only five months, and there's not a lot one can do in five months besides tarnish her reputation (which, truth be told, is already pretty much trashed).

Despite her apparent guilt, Stewart had the audacity to make it seem as if she were the victim here, when she clearly wasn't. What she did was cold, calculating, illegal and immoral. Although many may not believe she did anything wrong, she most certainly did. She received insider information from a head of the ImClone company (who happened to be her friend), information she should never have received, and as a result was not hurt financially when ImClone went under. She could have gone public with the information, but instead she protected her millions at the expense of the other stockholders.

Stewart put on this brave front when she received her light sentence of five months. It's sad that, just because she is a celebrity, she is essentially getting off a lot easier than other people would. Because of her status in society, and no other reason, she is getting a slap on the wrist when she deserves much worse.

When this scandal started, Stewart expected to get off light because, well, she's Martha Stewart. Now that the trial is over, she still expects special treatment. Stewart had no apologies for what she did and she won't even really admit what she did was wrong; if she felt guilty, she would take the five months she was sentenced with and be grateful for such a light sentence. But is she? No. She's appealing a sentence of just five months.

Why is it that Stewart feels she deserves special treatment? It's sad that in our country a celebrity can break the law and get off light, whereas someone else who did what Stewart did would get a heavier sentence. Our country is focused on treating celebrities like demi-gods, allowing them to run rampant and do things that normal people couldn't. Although everyone can agree that what Stewart did was illegal, she still gets off light.

Make no mistake about it --what Stewart did was wrong. She had insider information that she shouldn't have been privy to and then sold her shares of the stock so she could avoid any financial setbacks. As if to add insult to injury, she has continually expected special treatment for her celebrity status. Had she not been famous, her sentence would (and should) have been far worse.

Paige Nieto, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, 
can be reached via dccampus@mail.uh.edu.