RE: Martha Stewart and her Merrill Lynch Broker

From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Fri Jun 06 2003 - 10:03:38 MDT

  • Next message: Ramez Naam: "RE: [Iraq] The real reason for the war"

    Rafal Smigrodzki wrote,
    > It is worth remembering that the specific actions performed by Ms
    > Stewart are referred to as "crimes" only because a statute
    > classified them as such. It is therefore a subtle psychological
    > manipulation to use this term here.

    I guess I agree, but this could be said of any crimes. They are only
    "crimes" because a statute classified them as such. I don't think it is
    too misleading to refer to acts defined by statute to be illegal as
    "crimes."

    > I thought the correct word here is something like "invalid" or
    > "void" but not illegal. It would be wrong to make it illegal.

    "Null" and "void" and "invalid" all mean the same thing as "unenforceable."
    The contract does not have to be enforced, but the legislature hasn't
    defined such as a crime. In discussing transactions that have been defined
    by the legislature to be crimes, such as fraud and insider trading, then
    the term "illegal" is accurate. Any contract which requires an illegal act
    to take place is an illegal contract. Examples would include contracts for
    slaves, stolen goods, or murder.

    --
    Harvey Newstrom, CISM, CISSP, IAM, IBMCP, GSEC
    Certified InfoSec Manager, Certified IS Security Pro, NSA-certified Infosec
    Assessment Method, IBM-Certified Security Consultant Pro, SANS GIAC
    Security
    <HarveyNewstrom.com> <Newstaff.com>
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 06 2003 - 10:14:29 MDT