Waiting for a lunch date this afternoon, I couldn't help but overhear a spirited discussion about the Martha Stewart verdict. Some of those participating thought she was guilty and some thought she was innocent, and it struck me that none of these folks had arrived at their views by studying the merits of the case. The "Not Guilty" crowd merely felt that the world of stock trading is full of sleazy dealings and that if Ken Lay can escape indictment for something a zillion times worse, there's something selective about the prosecution of Ms. Stewart. The "Guilty" voters, meanwhile, seemed to just dislike her, period. And of course, if you don't like someone then they must be guilty of all accusations.
I'm always amazed at the depth of loathing some people have for folks they've never met and who've never done them or anyone any harm. Years ago at a party, I heard someone tick off a list of famous individuals who deserved to rot in Hades and the last two named were Timothy McVeigh and Kathie Lee Gifford…to which several around muttered, "Yeah! Kathie Lee!" I'm no particular fan of Ms. Gifford but…well, call me crazy but I think blowing up a building and killing 168 people might be a wee bit worse than being annoying on a talk show. I always got the feeling some people who abhorred Kathie Lee — and I feel this way again with Martha — disliked her because she reminded them of someone they didn't get along with in high school.
If I try to view today's verdict in some sort of positive light…well, I guess it's good to know that rich people can sometimes get convicted in our court system. Still, I'd feel a little better about this if I believed she'd actually broken a law and that it's a law that is applied equally to all.
And I guess I should point out that I don't know that she didn't break a genuine law. I don't know…and neither do a lot of people who are elated at the verdict. They only know how they feel about Martha Stewart, and maybe how they feel about someone "big" getting nailed to the wall.