>>People could've just as easily thought/rationalised, "Wealth guarantees
>>you'll get off, eh? Well, I'm going to get mine, so I can buy off the
>>Feds too
>>if they come for me!"
I'll answer the latter part of your response first:
>Spinning it the way
>they did was the best ploy for protecting the system.
True (I take you mean Juror # 8 as Doug called him and the prosecutor). Just out of curiosity, how much of that pablum do you think was spin and how much sincerity?
>I just wonder how many people buy into this as proof
>that they are now protected from white collar (if
>that's the correct term) crime?
I don't think what happened could be termed "white collar crime" (Justin?) except in the broadest sense of the term.
People who "play the game" of trading were, I'd imagine, watching the trial fairly closely (those new to it and those rubes who day trade probably obssessively). I suspect they'd feel vindicated by the result, seeing Martha as one who played, cheated, and got caught. They'd either feel smug about a "cheater" (especially one so much wealthier and famous) biting the dust or briefly concerned to be more careful of their own cheating.
>No, people could not as easily thought/rationalised
>that, because most people realize that they could
>never reach that level of wealth.
I think I was talking more about the people who are into stock trading, etc. for their livelihood or day-trading for kicks and/or extra money. I suspect the average Joe/Jane Doe would figure that Justice Had Prevailed and get on with their lives (except for Martha's Legions, of course). Had the trial gone the other way, there might have been grumbling about the Rich "taking care of their own" and the wealthier traders feeling that much more "invincible" wrt getting caught.
>-Thomas
_________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN Premium. Get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&page=byoa/prem&xAPID=1994&DI=1034&SU=http://hotmail.com/enca&HL=Market_MSNIS_Taglines