As readers of this blog know, I believe that the recent prosecution and conviction of Martha Stewart is an injustice.

The result of that injustice is equally disturbing.

As American Enterprise Institute scholar John R. Lott notes in this article, Ms. Stewart’s sentencing reflects a system that is so badly out of whack that it penalizes wealthy people far more than poorer people who commit the same offense:

Before the 1987 [sentencing] guideline, judges could sentence two criminals who’d committed the same crime to vastly different sentences: Ms. Stewart could have been let off with simple probation or given more than 10 years. But judges were rarely that arbitrary. In fact, denying judges discretion has made penalties less, not more, equal.

The reason is simple: the justice system imposes many types of penalties on criminals, but the sentencing guidelines only make sure that the prison sentences are equal. Beyond prison, criminals face financial penalties that largely depend on the criminal’s wealth. In addition to fines and restitution, white-collar criminals face the loss of business or professional licenses and the ability to serve as an executive or director for a publicly traded company.

Using Ms. Stewart’s case as an example, Mr. Lott notes that those extra penalties for the wealthy are substantial, such as Ms. Stewart’s responsibility for the losses that investors in her company suffered as a result of her conviction:

I cannot say it better than Mr. Lott’s conclusion:

It is hardly ever fashionable to defend the wealthy–let alone wealthy criminals. Yet the gap in punishment is so enormous it is impossible to ignore. If fairness means that two people who commit the same crime should expect the same penalty, the current system is not merely unfair, it is unconscionable.