home

Paris Hilton to Serve 23 Days in Jail, In Special Housing Unit

Paris Hilton hasn't started serving her sentence yet, but it's already been halved to 23 days with time off for good behavior. What's good behavior? It includes showing up for her sentencing.

She'll be in a special housing unit, and that is not synonymous with special treatment. It means isolation from the general public for her protection. Her fellow inmates:

Hilton will stay in a unit that contains 12 two-person cells reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrities and other high-profile inmates, he said.

Like everyone else in the 2,200-inmate facility, Hilton will get at least an hour outside her cell each day to shower, watch television, participate in outdoor recreation or talk on the telephone, he said.

In other words, she'll be in 23 hour lockdown. That's ridiculous. She's being treated more harshly because of who she is. Her sentence was for violating probation by driving with a suspended license. She didn't drive drunk on probation. She didn't hurt anyone. I really doubt anyone else in that situation would have gotten more than five or ten days.

23 days in isolation (2 pairs of underwear a week) is absurd.

< American Idol: Bring Back Melinda | Gonzo: Must Have Been A Different Illegal Surveillance Program >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Give me a break..... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by rhinostate on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:08:09 AM EST
    I have no reason to feel bad for Paris Hilton.  She drove with a suspended license, which was suspended for drunk driving.  They suspend your license for a reason...because you drove drunk and you need a cooling down period.  She failed to abide by the rules not once, but twice.  In some states, driving with a suspended license for a DUI is considered a felony.  She violated her probation not by testing positive for a drug test or some other petty offense.  She violated her probation by doing something the state explicitly told her not to do.  She violated her probation by engaging in an action that is considered to be punishment for her previous crime.  She deserves a few weeks in jail.  And if you're that concerned with the amount of clothing she receives, remember this: she can always wash them...I mean, really, how dirty are they going to get with her in an isolated cell?

    I know this sounds bad (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by lilybart on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:26:30 AM EST
    but, if I didn't have to be stip searched etc...I would enjoy 23 days of quiet, alone , to meditate and read.

    Drunk driving is a BIG DEAL.
    People die.
    No, she did not drive drunk this time, but she can afford a driver so she has NO excuse.

    Really? (none / 0) (#24)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:42:13 AM EST
    I know that is what MADD, SADD, and prosecutors nationwide keep saying....but I think vehicular homicide is a big deal, reckless driving that endangers others is a big deal.  Drunk or sober.

    Parent
    Logic? (none / 0) (#27)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:53:32 AM EST
     all drunk drivers don't harm others. Therefore, laws against driving while intoxicated are wrong and we should only have laws when harm to others is caused.

      Shooting at people only hurts them if you hit them. Therefore, if you miss there should be no punishment.

      The law should be blind to the greater potential for harm when people choose to engage in unreasonably dangerous acts simply because harm is not certain?

      Good luck with that philosophy. I assume that in addition to applying it to governmental regulation, you live by it in your personal life. If your older child gives his little brother  rat poison and tells him it's good to eat, you just let it slide unless the little bro actually eats it. No harm, no foul.
     

    Parent

    Food for thought.... (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:04:31 PM EST
    Thanks Decon.  

    I guess I've gotten a ride from too many people who may have been .01 or .02 over the limit and felt totally safe in the car with them, and driven with other people stone cold sober and felt like my life was in danger.  

    I feel that if you're driving safely, I don't care what is in your blood.  I'm ok with punishing reckless driving, drunk or sober, even if nobody gets hurt, since its logical to believe somebody will get hurt if you're doing 105 and swerving.  I just don't follow the logic that a driver that is .01 or .02 over the limit is automatically reckless.  And by punishment I mean a fine or community service, certainly not jail if nobody gets hurt.

    Again, I don't expect you to agree, this is wildly unpopular stuff I'm talking.

    Parent

    well, KDOG, (none / 0) (#31)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:11:24 PM EST
      then what you actually seem to oppose are the "per se" laws under which the State is relieved of the burden of improving actual impairment when the BAC is at or above a certain threshold. That is a much much more narrow and more defensible position.

      THAT argument is more akin to arguing it is not unreasonably dangerous for some people to drive at some arbitrarily set level even though it might be for some others and that the State should be required to prove in each case that the defendant's ability to operate his vehicle was impaired.

       It's not the much different argument that the State should not be allowed to outlaw unreasnobly dangerous behavior unlkess someone is harmed as a result.

    Parent

    You're good with words dude.... (none / 0) (#38)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:35:24 PM EST
    your 2nd paragraph sums up how I feel well.

    Parent
    As i said that is a defensible position (none / 0) (#40)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:54:14 PM EST
     and way back when when we had cars and alcohol but no conveneient and cheap way to measure BAC, people were convicted of DUI without any evidence of BAC all the time.

      "Per se" laws simply make it easier to get convictions because the subjective element of actual impairment is not necessary for the State to prove when it can prove a certain BAC (.08).

      We do not even allow (at least nowhere with which I am familiar) the affirmative defense of "lack of actual impairment" under per se laws. That means not only does the State not have to prove impairment but also that it does the defendant no good to prove he was not impaired (except in a "jury nullification" scenario).

    So if you were to try to  bring in a clinician to testify that under controlled conditions he brought you to the same BAC and then tested your reflexes, reactions,  coordination, judgment, etc., and found you were not impaired to a degree rendering it unsafe for you to drive. the testimony most likely would not even be allowed if you were being tried solely under the "per se" prong. Even if it was allowed the jury would be instructed it need not find impairement but only that your BAC was proven beyond a reasonable doubt and if it felt that was proven it should convict even if it was also believed you were not impaired.

      That doesn't mean it's never relevant though, because, as far as I know,  all states still have laws where people below the BAC level can be convicted upon proof of actual impairment and of course alcohol is the only intoxicant for which we have "per se" levels. All other intoxicants (due to lack of cheap and conveneient measuring capabilities) require showing presence of the drug and impairment. (Although impairment can be inferred from the crcumstances and need not be "scientifically" proven.)

    Parent

    Intention (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:00:33 PM EST
    Shooting at people only hurts them if you hit them. Therefore, if you miss there should be no punishment.

    Your analogy seems false and way off base to me. How is drunk driving analogous to intentionally trying to shoot someone and then missing?

    Parent

    I'm not surprised (none / 0) (#30)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:06:04 PM EST
     you don't "get it." It requires thinking.

      For those capable of thinking, I think the obvious fact that both acts involve intentionally behaving in ways that create an unreasonable risk of harm to others is self-explanatory.

    Parent

    Thinking? (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:23:48 PM EST
    I have also been in a car with someone driving slightly above the limit and have felt perfectly safe. The said person has never had a accident and never engaged in reckless driving.

    The person in question has zero intention of harming anyone and lots of experience on the road. The only intention of this person is to drive home after dinner.

    Your shooter that misses his target only has the intention to harm.

    Parent

    Not necessarily, (none / 0) (#35)
    by Peaches on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:30:17 PM EST
    Some people shoot as a form of celebration (it happens more in other countries.) Some to impress others. Sometimes a gun goes off accidently. But there are laws against pulling out a loaded weapon in public and discharging it (at least I assume there is - God, I hope there is) whether or not there is an intention to shoot someone. The intention only changes the offense the shooter will be charged with.

    Parent
    Tell u what (none / 0) (#36)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:30:21 PM EST
      Buy a gun. Go home tonight, load up and start firing your gun in the  street while people are present. Even take that extra second to make sure you don't hit anyone.

       Then explain to the judge that he is a fascist for sentencing you based on the unfair law against wanton endangerment because you didn't intend to wound anyone and they should have all felt perfectly safe because your only intention was to try out your new gun and you are the only one who should be allowed to judge the dangerousness of your conduct.

      Or, just stop making a fool of yourself.

     

    Parent

    Moving the Goalposts? (none / 0) (#39)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:37:41 PM EST
     Shooting at people only hurts them if you hit them. Therefore, if you miss there should be no punishment.

    Hey Decon I am only responding to your statement requoted above.

    There are many instances where shooting someone happens by accident as there is no intention to harm. Your analogy implies intent to harm. "Shooting at people" is not shooting in the air or shooting someone in the face because your gun went off accidentially.

    Parent

    THINK (none / 0) (#41)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:07:07 PM EST
      the  required INTENT is often the intent to engage in an unreasonablty dangerous act not the intent to cause the specific harm actually caused or even any harm.

      Did you never hear of the crimes of  "negligent homicide"  "vehicular manslaughter" "wanton endangerment" or involuntary manslaughter among others?

      If I shoot at you simply to scare you with no intent hit and wound let alone kill you,  I am still guilty of a crime-- even if I don't hit you by accident.

     Or, if I am simply very foolish and reckless and do something extremely careless without even intent to scare or intimidate  that causes what SOCIETY HAS DEEMED  to be an unreasonable risk to others I can be convicted if there is a lawfully enacted statute covering my conduct.

      KDOg at least has a basic understanding of this as he cited the obvious example of reckless driving. I need not have any intent to harm anyone or to have harmed anyone to be guilty. the intent required is the intent to drive in what a reasonable person would understand to be an unreasonably dangerous manner-- and I don't get to decide what is reasonable or unreasonable.
     

    Parent

    Intent (none / 0) (#46)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:51:58 PM EST
    Shooting at people.

    If you do kill someone while you are shooting at people it will be tough to get away with anything but first degree murder.

    But my intent was only to scare them?  Tell that to the judge.

    A more apt analogy would be arguing that you were only trying  to scare a crowd of people by driving into them and did not intend to harm or kill anyone.

    Your analogy is weak at best. Save for my example above being reckless with a car and being reckless with a gun are apples and oranges.

    A car has a main function of transporting. A gun has a main function of killing.

    Parent

    As a 20+ year gun owner, imo, (none / 0) (#47)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:03:40 PM EST
    in our society, a gun's main function is to punch holes in pieces of paper and/or break clay frisbees.

    Parent
    OK (none / 0) (#50)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:10:31 PM EST
    A gun's main function for you is destruction.

    A car's main function is trasnportation.

    Parent

    Again ... (none / 0) (#53)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:23:08 PM EST
     you are confusing standards of intent with issues of proof.

      If I am at the firing range shooting my gun at targets and accidentally shoot someone, I am at most guilty of involntary manslaughter if it is proven I engaged in a  lawful act in an unreasonable manner and caused a death without intent.

      If I drive my car with  into a person with the intent to kill him I may be guilty of 1st degree murder if I premeditated and had malice; 2nd degree if i acted without premeditation but with malice; or voluntary manslaughter if I neither premeditated or possessed malice.

      You can't graps the distinction between: it may be easier to prevent the prosecution from proving intent where I do not use a typical weapon and the use of an unconventional weapon changes the standard of intent.

      If I kill you with a silk scarf,  the issue is still my my mens rea,  not the fact the scarf was designed as a fashion accessory.

    Parent

    The function.... (none / 0) (#56)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:43:42 PM EST
    of most every firearm I've ever seen in person was to intimidate somebody into compliance.

    Most every firearm I've seen was on the hip or in the hand of a cop.

    Parent

    Well, maybe you ought to hang (none / 0) (#58)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:56:52 PM EST
    around a different crowd, you'd see how the majority of guns are used in America - with zero aspect of intimidation or compliance.

    In fact, in our society, I would bet that less than 1/100 of 1% of all discharged ammo is directed at another person or an animal.

    Parent

    Are you a masochis? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:10:00 PM EST
      "If you do kill someone while you are shooting at people it will be tough to get away with anything but first degree murder."

      Actually, it is extremely common for people to be convicted of something less than 1st degree murder even when they are shooting at a specific person with a specific intent to kill that specific person. Why you make assertions on subjects about which you are completely ignorant (and really have nothing to do with the issue at hand) i don't know unless you simply enjoy having your ignorance exposed.

       As for your scenario, if it is believed you had no intent to kill then you are not even guilty of common law voluntary manslaughter which requires intent to kill.

      Basically:

      1st degree:  PREMEDITATED intentional  killing with malice (or felony murder whhere death results as a forseeable consequence of the commission of a felony -- but the intent for the underlying felony must be proven0

      2nd degree: intentional killing with MALICE.

     Voluntary manslaughter: INTENTIONAL KILLING  in the heat of passion/ with provocation so that malice is not proven.

      Without intent to kill only the lesser homicide offenses (involuntary manslaughter, negligent homicide, etc.) apply.

      You cannot distinguish between possible evaluations of credibility and persuasiveness of evidence and legal satandrda of intent. It's all first week of law school stuff but I doubt there is much risk of you going to law school.

     

    Parent

    Liggle Away (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:22:56 PM EST
    With your lawyerly talk, I still think that this statement:

    Shooting at people only hurts them if you hit them. Therefore, if you miss there should be no punishment.

    Is not analogous to driving over the limit.  Especially given the context of your comment which was kdogs statement:

    I guess I've gotten a ride from too many people who may have been .01 or .02 over the limit and felt totally safe in the car with them, and driven with other people stone cold sober and felt like my life was in danger.  

    I feel that if you're driving safely, I don't care what is in your blood.  I'm ok with punishing reckless driving, drunk or sober, even if nobody gets hurt, since its logical to believe somebody will get hurt if you're doing 105 and swerving.  I just don't follow the logic that a driver that is .01 or .02 over the limit is automatically reckless.  And by punishment I mean a fine or community service, certainly not jail if nobody gets hurt.

    Common sense tells me that safe driver that is over the limit and driving home is very different than a person who is shooting into a crowd, even if the only intent is to scare people.

    And I am also fine with someone getting a fine for being over the limit, in this case jailing Hilton seems unfair.

    What would be the punishment for someone shooting into a crowd and missing? Same as what Hilton got?

    Parent

    It would depend (none / 0) (#55)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:32:51 PM EST
      Probation is sometimes imposed even when people don't miss and someone is hurt when a person fires a gun. Sometimes people get rather severe prison sentences.

      I've actually had two MURDER cases where a judge imposed probation on my clients after they were convicted (pursuant to a plea agreement) of 2nd degree murder. On the other hand, I have had more clients than I care to recount sentenced to very long prison sentences for selling drugs to people who wanted the drugs.

      In the gallows humor mode some colleagues and I have speculated that a client would have probably received less time if he had killed his customer rather than sold him an illegal commodity.

      THAT'S injustice. Hilton spending 3 weeks in jail for being a drunk driver, probation violator and a world class ** is not.

     

    Parent

    3 weeks.... (none / 0) (#57)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    is a long time in a cage.  I've only done overnight and that felt like torture.  

    A terrible terrible feeling man, not to be taken lightly.

    Parent

    It's not meant (none / 0) (#63)
    by Deconstructionist on Fri May 18, 2007 at 07:36:59 AM EST
    to be taken lightly. In fact, it appears the motivation here is to make Ms. Hilton STOP taking her lawbreaking lightly.

      Remember too, this is not a case where she was taken to jail after the stop and put in jail awaiting a bond hearing-- as commonly happens to many drunk drivers. She had full opportunity to be heard in court wiuth representation by presumably good lawyers before she will ever set foot inside a jail.

    Parent

    So then I assume you feel (none / 0) (#37)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:32:40 PM EST
    assault weapons should be legalized? Machine guns? Scuds maybe?

    As long as the user doesn't intend to hurt some one else, it's OK, right?

    Hey, wait a minute...

    Parent

    the topic is (none / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:08:13 PM EST
    Paris Hilton, not gun control. Thanks.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#45)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:36:30 PM EST
    This comment gave me a chuckle
    23 days in isolation (2 pairs of underwear a week) is absurd.
    considering her and her girlfriend's infamous proclivities and contretemps with their undies...

    Parent
    She is being treated "differently" (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:40:15 AM EST
     because she's rich and famous. " More harshly" is a stretch. I haven't spoken to her recently, but would she prefer being in the general population and making new friends? If so, het lawyer should file a motion and argue that the security concerns of the jail are outweighed by the degree of deprivation of her liberty involved in special housing.

      Do you have ANY records to show that the "typical" LA County defendant who willfully violates the term of her release by driving on a license suspended for DUI serves only 5-10 days?

    I know where I have practiced it is very common for people who violate the terms of an alternative sentence to be sent to jail to serve the term that was suspended or held in abeyance contingent upon successfully fulfillment of the alternative sentence.

      It's also worth noting that Hilton seems to ONLY have been tagged with the violation of her release terms on the underlying DUI and NOT charged with the additional substantive crime of driving on a revoked license. I don't know California law on this but in many jurisdictions that offense carries mandatory penalties, often requiring incarceration. Even if incarceration is not mandatory in California, it would seem likely that with the  flagrant violation of a very recently imposed alternative sentence fresh in the Court's memory that it would be a hard sell for her to get an alternative sentence if found guilty of that. so, all in all this sounds neither atypically harsh or atypically lenient to me.

      She got a break (that is commonly given) and she didn't take advantage of it. now, she's getting what seems a reasonable punishment for thumbing her nose at the Court that gev her the break-- but she still isn't getting hammered with the full potential weight of the law (which is also typical).

       With all the REAL injustice in this country, I can't understand why you pick this caser to highlight. Do you not worry that people will question your perspective on more weighty issues when you label this an injustice?

    To all the chain and cage cheerleaders.... (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:46:35 AM EST
    remember how you feel when somebody you know or love runs afoul of our expansive crimnal laws and gets locked up over some bullsh*t.

    Paris Hilton makes my stomach turn as much as the next guy...but I'm sorry, she doesn't belong in jail.  Vindictive, senseless cruelty, imo.

    I wonder if you would feel the same way... (none / 0) (#17)
    by Aaron on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:59:43 AM EST
    ... if Paris killed one of your kids, or someone you love because she was too stubborn to have someone give her a ride home after she's been partying all night.

    This is a person who could have her driving privileges removed for life, and it wouldn't affect her life one whit, yet you think she should be allowed to endanger other people, repeatedly, and not have to face the consequences?

    Please tell me how you come to this conclusion.

    Parent

    Tell me.... (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    who she killed?  If she had killed or injured somebody while driving, I'm fine with charging her with murder....but she didn't.

    She drove with a suspended license....oh the horror!  Lock her up!  Lock her up!  

    You crack me up Aaron.

    Parent

    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:40:17 AM EST
     She's going to to serve 23 days because she didn't hurt anyone and thus wasn't charged with homicide.

       If you simply believe that no one should go to jail unless someone dies then you need to work for essentially a totalreform of the system.

      The issue HERE is whether people think this particular person received a greater, lesser or "average" sentence for what she did. for the most part most of the assertions that she got off easy because of her status seem as misplaced as the assetions she was treated more harsgly because of who she is.

      This seems a pretty good case to use as an example of someone who received a reasonable sentence  FOR WHAT SHE DID in light of the laws applicable to the conduct. Everyone seems to want to use this to support their preconceived perceptions and to promote their personal biases despite the fact this particular case is  remarkableyill-suited for such transparent  exploitation regardless of what agenda one wants to argue.

     

    Parent

    My agenda... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    if I even have one, is to illustrate that we lock up way too many people.  Paris is a good example.  

    Thats all.  I don't respect the law so I don't really care what the law says...I realize my views are way too unpopular to facilitate the changes necessary in the law to make it worthy of my respect.  

    The zeal with which some are defending the caging of Paris Hilton is a great reminder just how unpopular my views are.  We, as a scoiety, love to revel in others misery.  We love to hate this girl, and we love to see her caged.  Why?  Because she's rich?  Famous for doing nothing?  Whatever the reason, its a little sick, imo.

    Parent

    We lock up too many (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Peaches on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:23:33 PM EST
    poor people and disenfranchise and Black people. We lock up too many people for possession of Pot.

    We don't lock up enough people for driving while intoxicated. I have done it, I have driven with people who were intoxicated. I was lucky and have not been involved in an accident that led to serious injury (I have gone off the road and abandoned a car and ran all the way home, but that is another story.) Driving while intoxicated was a right of passage when I was growing up. Many of my classmates, cronies, and acquaintances were either killed or killed someone while driving drunk. I am a father now and an adult who won't go near a vehicle if I or a driver has had even one drink. I want my children to follow the same example. I also don't like driving with the knowledge that other drivers are impaired by alcohol. 23 days in jail is not only a good message to send to Paris, it sets a much needed precedent and example to others considering driving drunk.

    I might feel differently if it was the 21 year old  black student going to jail for 23 days for driving intoxicated and Paris was given community service, but this case actually seems like it might be fair and a good message sent out to our citizens. A wealthy famous white sex kitten is going to jail for 23 days. Suck it up, Paris, then go on David Letterman and tell all about your experience. Woop-deee-doo.

    I think you are choosing the wrong story, Kdog, to illustrate the unfairness inherent in our justice system.

    Parent

    Maybe brother.... (none / 0) (#60)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:21:51 PM EST
    but dwi laws get my goat too.  I've had too many friends fined up the wazoo and license suspended when they weren't a threat to anybody.  They drove on their suspended licenses too, gotta get to work ya know?  Anonymity comes in handy there.

    My great-uncle at 79 out on the roads everyday...thats another story.  I worry about him, but can't get him off the road, stubborn old goat.  He likes his freedom like everybody else. I don't worry about my buddies driving home a hair over the limit, just that they'll get pinched at a random checkpoint or some sting set up at the bar parking lot.

    As we discussed it briefly the other day, I think dwi laws are too focused on b.a.c., not enough on reckless driving.

    I don't know the particulars of Hilton's dwi arrest.  Locking her up for that or a parole violation or driving on a suspended license...whatever, its less unjust than other things but still unjust.

    But what do I know, I'm just some knucklehead:)

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#32)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:18:01 PM EST
     if you don't have "respect for the law" and don't care what it says, you are a very poor member of society. I'm not sure if you really mean that or are again venting without really thinking it through.

      You do not have to agree with laws to respect them. Lacking "respect" for laws is tantamount to lacking respect for everyone else and placing yourself "above the law" in your own mind.

      It would also make ring VERY hollow all your past complaints about abuse of power by those with power. If you don't respect the law what standing do you have to complain when others similarly lack such respect.

    Parent

    Sorry Decon.... (none / 0) (#59)
    by kdog on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:07:29 PM EST
    I expect the people who write, sign, and uphold the law to respect it...thats their bag.  I complain about the acts and behavior of others, sure.  Not that they are simply breaking the law.

    I look at the unfair ways our laws are implemented...thats worthy of respect?  The law says I'm a criminal...I can't respect that. Look at the ways throughout history the law has been used to hold people down.  Look at Sharia law.  Respect is earned my friend.

    I don't think me not really giving a sh*t about what the law says is tantamount to lacking respect for any individual.  I try my damndest to be respectful and kind to everybody, and like to think for the most part I succeed. I certainly don't think I'm above the law, I'm just trying to avoid the law. Live outside of it.

    Parent

    The Issue? (none / 0) (#25)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:50:25 AM EST
    The issue HERE is whether people think this particular person received a greater, lesser or "average" sentence for what she did.

    Rather pretentious of you to decide what the issue is. Why wouldn't this topic generate discussion about America's love of jailing people, plus other related issues.

    Besides kdog obviously thinks that the sentence is far to great, and along with Jeralyn he has convinced me. Even though I find Hilton's behavior and whole persona the epitome (or the ideal) of the ultimate 'ugly american', I think jail time is ridiculous.

    Parent

    she didn't kill or harm (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Jeralyn on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:08:57 PM EST
    anyone's kid.  

    Parent
    and she's not being punished (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Deconstructionist on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:34:00 PM EST
    consonant with what society would expect if she had.

      She is being punished for DUI after having her initial sentence of probation revoked for failure to abide by its terms.

      DUI does not require harm or intent to harm. It is unlawful because SOCIETY has deemed it an unreasonably dangerous act and legislation has thus been passed outlawing and prescribing penalties.

      This is perhaps the seminal example of a law where DETERRENCE is both an intended and real consequence of the law. A (seemingly huge)  majority believes that fewer people will drive drunk and thus create less potential for harm if it is illegal and the penalties are relatively severe.

      The prohibition of murder probably has very limited deterrent effect precisely because the state of mind necessary to murder is one where rational weighing of legal consequences often plays little role. The prohibition of drunk driving on the other hand is one where knowing the conswqiences of getting caught very likely causes many people to refrain. Fewer drunk drivers is a good thing because it indisputably lessens the risk of harm everyone (including the potential drunk driver) faces on the roads.

      Had Hilton simply abided by  the very reasonable terms of her probation, she would not now face jail. She refused to do that intentionally violated her probation and the law against driving on a revoked license. Having irrefutably demonstrated her unwillingness to obey the law, she came before a judge who no doubt considered that it would be ineffective to tell her a second time to do what she wouldn't the first.  

       She wouldn't even feign being contrite and no doubt angered the judge with unmitigated lack of respect for the law and for the court. THAT may have been a factor in her setence, but why shouldn't it be? It should be-- whether you are Paris Hilton or Joe Sixpack.

      I simply don't see how this can be twisted into: this sentence was imposed because of who she is. I'm not aware of any unkowns who could behave as she has and walked away with a "stern lecture" to be a good boy or girl.

       

    Parent

    Don't think PH would do well in (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:17:18 AM EST
    the general population.  Placing her in protective custody = the same problem encountered by former law enforcement officers, etc. and they are also deprived of some of the benefits and freedoms afforded those placed in the general population.  In other words, I'm not crying for her.

    I would prefer she were in the special karma unit (none / 0) (#2)
    by jerry on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:20:15 AM EST
    But the special housing unit will have to do.

    I do think it is curious that her "good behavior" consisted in part of showing up for her hearings.

    Is that typical of good behavior?  Seems a pretty low standard and not one offered to people not named Paris Hilton or other celebrities or big wigs.

    I also wonder how current and recent photos showing that she is STILL driving even though she has no license were counted towards her good behavior.

    I think I would have sentenced her to a month long rehab program, one day in a real facility, and a order barring her from using the phrase "America's Princess."

    I am curious to what the typical punishment for her particular crime is.  And I am hopeful that Paris Hilton sent to jail will mean that the Women Prison Flick Genre will see a reprisal.

    Showed up to court late! (none / 0) (#3)
    by oculus on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:22:32 AM EST
    i think (none / 0) (#4)
    by cpinva on Thu May 17, 2007 at 12:29:01 AM EST
    a more appropriate sentence would be to make her wear non brand-name clothing, in public, for a month. oh, the horror, the horror!

    so jeralyn, what is the average sentence, in that locality, for that particular offense? do you actually know, or are you just incensed because it "seems so unfair"?

    if she is being treated differently, than the average person, similarly situated, then i feel certain her "$400 billable hour" atty would be able to use that in a complaint against the judge. and if it's true, it isn't fair, in spite of the fact that i find ms. hilton suffers from delusions of mediocrity.

    Quote? (none / 0) (#20)
    by squeaky on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:23:26 AM EST
    Where did you get the quote that her atty was billing at $400/hr.

    That seems very low to me. I would think that Paris would have someone at up to double that rate.

    Parent

    opportunity (none / 0) (#5)
    by chemoelectric on Thu May 17, 2007 at 01:45:33 AM EST
    I would advise Ms. Hilton that this may be the best opportunity for personal growth that ever has wandered into her path. I have a feeling the judge sees it that way, too.

    How much time did Limbaugh serve? (none / 0) (#7)
    by dkmich on Thu May 17, 2007 at 04:38:30 AM EST
    Yeah, that's what I thought.  I vaguely know who Paris Hilton is.  I really don't follow celebrities.  However, like Martha Stewart, she is getting a job done her while male high profile perps go untouched.  There is no such thing as justice in this country.  Ask all the black males in jail and on death row.

    Poor Paris (none / 0) (#8)
    by Freewill on Thu May 17, 2007 at 06:08:41 AM EST
    She is going to miss out on all the inmate games! Paris now can relate to how shunned Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer felt when he was not invited to play in the reindeer games!

    23 whole days in solitary confinement? I have seen people endure months and years in solitary.

    I bet you if Paris really feels upset about having to do 23 days in a Special Housing Unit for the Rich and Famous and she wants to roam "freely" with all the rest of the inmates, all she has to do is just ask the Judge or even prison Warden. They can make it happen really quickly!

    If people are upset that she is going to be confined for 23 days in that Special Housing here is something they can do to help Paris. Start a "Let Paris Roam Freely in Prison" petition! Along with Paris' pleas to the Judge or Warden and every one's petition support poor, mistreated Paris can enjoy all the amenities that jails provide.

    Opportunity knocks! (none / 0) (#9)
    by roger on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:34:51 AM EST
    Paris can now get a "prison tattoo"! She will have "street cred" and be even hipper than before.

    Let her rot.... (none / 0) (#12)
    by madmatt on Thu May 17, 2007 at 08:53:34 AM EST
    and you can thank the people at MADD and SADD for driving up rates and penalties on DUIs...and she was a moron and deserves to be punished for her stupidity...how many 26 year old poor black men get that kind of deal?

    for her protection (none / 0) (#13)
    by polizeros on Thu May 17, 2007 at 09:45:06 AM EST
    They can't let her in the general population. Too risky to her, and a PR disaster is something did.


    Puhleeeeze.... (none / 0) (#14)
    by desertswine on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:37:50 AM EST
    Just keep her off my television.

    Spoiled rich kid's (none / 0) (#16)
    by Aaron on Thu May 17, 2007 at 10:51:57 AM EST
    I'm sure that when Paris kill someone while driving drunk, the state will ground her for a month.

    Um (none / 0) (#18)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:08:18 AM EST
    How does
    In other words, she'll be in 23 hour lockdown. That's ridiculous. She's being treated more harshly because of who she is.
    square with the facts?
    Like everyone else in the 2,200-inmate facility, Hilton will get at least an hour outside her cell each day
    As an aside, in my (very limited) experience with peeps thrown in the "very much overcrowded so most people don't serve anywhere near their full sentence" LA County pokey, she'll get out pretty quickly.

    Last year a guy I knew hit-and-ran a pedestrian. He was sentenced to 30 days in county and they let him go after 3...although, he was 73 years old.

    My bet is Paris does 5 days.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#21)
    by Claw on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:32:58 AM EST
    That's very odd.  Usually jail time (not prison) is served in full with credit for "good time," etc.  Most states solve overcrowding problems by shipping inmates to other facilities.  Learn something new every day, I guess.  

    Also (none / 0) (#22)
    by Claw on Thu May 17, 2007 at 11:40:08 AM EST
    I'm kind of on the fence RE: isolation.  For long sentences, I agree; it's barbaric...but for short sentences where there exists a high likelihood that the inmate will be harassed by others...I don't know.  Working in criminal defense, I know I'm supposed to be against it...it's always been sort of a secret shame.

    Sympathizing With Paris!?! (none / 0) (#48)
    by MrGreyGhost on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:07:33 PM EST
    First of all, Paris Hilton broke the law (and its not the first time). Secondly, she's a mega-rich, spoiled brat who never accepts responsibity for her actions. Lastly, anyone who "feels sorry" for Paris here seriously needs help themselves and should be sentenced to serve the 23 days with Paris.

    hmm. (none / 0) (#54)
    by Peaches on Thu May 17, 2007 at 02:32:06 PM EST
    Lastly, anyone who "feels sorry" for Paris here seriously needs help themselves and should be sentenced to serve the 23 days with Paris.

    Would that be in the same cell as Paris? If that be the case, I change my mind. I feel sorry for her. I hope she'll feel sorry for me.

    Parent

    Also (none / 0) (#61)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    Why are we calling it isolation?

    She, like a bunch of others, will be in a 2-person cell.

    Probably have plenty of neighbors and lots of attention as well.

    Not that I'd like to be in her shoes...

    Most jail cell blocks have a commons area (none / 0) (#62)
    by JSN on Thu May 17, 2007 at 07:52:52 PM EST
    that has tables, chairs and a TV the prisoners can use when they are not in their cells. Jeralyn has been in a lot of jails so she must know that so I wish she would explain her statement about 23 hr/day lock down for PH.