Paris Hilton Sentenced to 45 Days in Jail

The Judge was hard on Paris Hilton today, sentencing her to 45 days in the L.A. County Jail for violating probation by driving while her license was suspended.

Hilton had been serving 36 months of probation after pleading no contest to a charge of alcohol-related reckless driving related to her Sept. 7 arrest in Hollywood. She also had been fined $1,500.

Paris' defense was a little weak -- she said her aides hadn't told her about the driving restriction.

Still, 45 days is stiff.

Her mother's reaction:

Hilton appeared stunned by the ruling and began to cry. Hilton's mother also began to show her displeasure visibly, shaking her head -- and had be warned by a court official to stop....

....Her mother, Kathy, told the prosecutor after the judge's decision: "You're pathetic."

Did Paris get a stiffer sentence because she's a celebrity?

Having spent all day in a county jail visiting clients denied bond in federal cases, I can tell you it's no walk in the park. And I bet the LA County Jail is a nightmare by comparison.


Jail should be a last resort for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected. Driving under suspension, without more, even if on probation, just doesn't qualify in my opinion.

Community service would have been far better.

Update: See below. This is just wrong of the judge.

The New York Times reports:

She was then ordered to report to a women's jail in suburban Lynwood by the set date or face 90 days behind bars. The judge's ruling excluded her from paying to serve time in a jail of her choice, as some are allowed.

Why can other rich people pick their jail but she can't? Last week I wrote about LA's program of private self-pay jails.

I agree with Paris' lawyer Howard Weitzman(a great one, by the way),

Defense attorney Howard Weitzman said he would appeal.

''I'm shocked, I'm surprised and really disheartened in the system that I've worked in for close to 40 years,'' Weitzman said. He said the sentence was ''uncalled for, inappropriate and bordered on the ludicrous.''

''I think she's singled out because of who she is,'' Weitzman said.

Her "aide", Elliot Mintz, backed up her story:

Also called to the stand was Hilton's spokesman, Elliot Mintz. Hilton and her attorneys characterized Mintz as a liaison between Hilton and her lawyers.

Mintz testified that to his knowledge Hilton did not drive during the 30-day period. He said he then advised her that he believed her license was no longer suspended.

The judge called Mintz's testimony worthless and expressed disbelief at Hilton's lawyers.

''I can't believe that either attorney did not tell her that the suspension had been upheld,'' the judge said. ''She wanted to disregard everything that was said and continue to drive no matter what.''

Free Paris.

Update: TBogg and TRex have a different take, as do their commenters.

< Should Computer Techs Be Mandatory Reporters of Child Porn? | Will The Media Matter In The 2008 Election? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmmm. (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Gabriel Malor on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:28:28 PM EST
    She probably didn't do herself any favors by showing up late to court, either.

    From the post (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:39:39 PM EST
    Jail should be a last resort for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected. Driving under suspension, without more, even if on probation, just doesn't qualify in my opinion

    et al - I have seen up close and personal the human cost of the actions of those who continue to drive after being told they have lost the right.

    Walk in that room and have them pull the sheet back and then go outside crying and puking and cursing.

    And then tell me Paris Hilton got a bum deal.

    The hell she did. She is a walking "killer bomb" just waiting to happen.

    I agree that this crime is a bit different. (4.00 / 1) (#20)
    by lilybart on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:05:45 AM EST
    Drunk driving is a major crime and it seems the other guy always dies, not the driver.

    So, although I agree with the main poster that there are way too many people in jail in this country, drunk driving charges should be taken very seriously, and with the rich, only this kind of hardship makes an impression.

    Taking a couple of million from a billionairess is not a hardship She gets a million dollars just to show up at a party or opening.


    I gotta agree. (none / 0) (#29)
    by nolo on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:43:35 PM EST
    Some people think they're immortal, or that their mistakes will never have consequences.  I'd rather see her get jail time than, say, plaster her car to the back of a tow truck, let alone take someone else out.

    Nonsense.... (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:07:50 AM EST
    Paris Hilton is no more a ticking time bomb than you or I.

    Yes, she got a dwi, but she never actually crashed into anybody.  Jailtime is overly harsh.  If and when she hurts somebody with her car...then lock her up.

    We need to stop emphasizing punishment based on bac level, and start emphasizing punishment based on reckless behavior that actually leads to an injury. In other words, I don't care what your bac level is, just don't crash into me.  If you do crash into me, I'd like to see you punished, otherwise do your thing my fellow free american.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:29:15 AM EST
    She may not have crashed her car into anyone but it seems that she crashed into the Judge.

    Less than setting a celebrity example it seems to me that it is about a clash of power. Most of us would al least act contrite, even if we though the whole thing a sham. Unless we knew that getting off was a sure bet because the game was rigged. It seems that is her postiion in life and she may be right about it.  


    kdog - Some things aren't abstract. (none / 0) (#34)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 02:00:41 PM EST
    I confess to having a very emotional connection to DWI laws. That is what she was orginally convicted of.

    If and when she hurts somebody with her car...then lock her up

    Her actions show that she will. When that happens, you can walk into that room and have them pull the sheet back and then you can go outside crying puking and cursing.

    I've done my turn.


    My sympathies friend...... (none / 0) (#35)
    by kdog on Sun May 06, 2007 at 08:07:09 PM EST
    I don't mean to belittle anyones loss.  I've never lost a loved one to a drunk driver, but I have seen a loved one badly hurt by a reckless sober driver.  I've been smashed into head-on by a sober jerk.  Which makes me see little difference between the reckless drunk and the reckless sober person.

    My main point is we overuse the chain and cage treatment...we should reserve chains and cages for people that kill, maim, rape, or inflict injury.


    kdog ... no problem, some things just bother (none / 0) (#36)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:14:07 PM EST
    me... And my point is that DWI's and total disregard for the results lead directly to killing, maiming, injuries. She has demonstrated that pattern.

    Hey, I love to tip a glass myself, but I am responsible enough to call a cab, or a friend..
    She has more than enough money to do that.

    Heck. She could buy the cab company.


    No worries...somethings bother me too.... (none / 0) (#41)
    by kdog on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:13:05 PM EST
    like slapping chains and caging someone for not having their driving paperwork in order...which is what this case boils down to.

    Her behavior deserves scorn....not chains and a cage.


    kdog - That's BS and you know it (none / 0) (#43)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:13:38 PM EST
    She was arrested for DWI. She received a deferred sentence.

    She basically told society to "f off."

    Society deserves better than that from everyone.

    Much less from someone who has been rewarded so highly by that society.

    Shame on her.


    Shame yes..... (none / 0) (#45)
    by kdog on Tue May 08, 2007 at 10:15:47 AM EST
    A cage, no.

    That's not right (none / 0) (#40)
    by pbaker on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:11:07 PM EST
    The idea of punishments is to act preventative.  The moment you step into a car with alcohol in your blood you HAVE become a huge risk to others.  That part cannot be excused, and I think a custodial sentence was indeed the only way to make Paris see that she crossed the line big time.

    But 45 days is ridiculous.

    [BTW, I've had that 'experience' in a different way (I saw the ECG go flat) so I'm not without emotional involvement either.  But I still question the length of the sentence.]


    Disagreeing, with due respect (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Umpteenth on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:53:27 PM EST
    All I know about the particular facts of this case is what I read in the LAT article on the case.  But what seems most salient about the situation, and the justice of the sentence, is the fact that Hilton appears to have been an unrepentent scofflaw in court, and thus nothing short of jail time seems appropriate.  (The question of how much time is another matter.)  Earlier, she pled no contest to a serious offense, was given a probationary sentence, and required to take various inconvenient steps to make good on her punishment.  She apparently did nothing whatever to alter her behavior or meet the conditions of her probation.  

    In some cases, one might say that a person who had limited means or competing important considerations might be forgiven for failing to meet even the light terms of the original sentence Hilton received.  But there is literally no reason why she needs to drive anywhere, ever, for purposes of her career, lifestyle, whatever.  Her refusal to meet the requirements of her probation was simply a refusal to pay any attention to the law.  Those who pay no attention to making good on their obligations to the law are liable for such punishments, me thinks.

    I would think that a lighter prison sentence might also have been just, but when a scofflaw has nearly unlimited resources to live up to the terms of a sentence, yet refuses to do so, then physical coercion seems to be the only way to show that she is not above the law.  

    No sympathy here.


    continuing on that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by skippybkroo on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:11:53 PM EST
    she apparently did nothing whatever to alter her behavior or meet the conditions of her probation

    from what i read she didn't even bother to enroll in the alcohol education class.

    (for the record, i did).


    I agree, she could hire a driver (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilybart on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:07:51 AM EST
    for what she gets just to show up at a party, she could pay a driver to be with her 24/7 without so much as a small dent in her wallet.

    She arrogantly refused to do anything required of her so jail is the right punishment and maybe the only way to deter her from killing someone with her car.


    lilybart.... (none / 0) (#32)
    by kdog on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:09:37 AM EST
    as far as I know she has never killed anybody with her car.  Jailing people over "maybes" or "could haves" is not freedom, imo.

    part of the credibility problem she had (4.00 / 1) (#18)
    by scribe on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:56:38 AM EST
    and why the judge came down so hard appears to stem from the fact that, on the second time she was pulled over for driving while suspended, the police found an official document in which she acknowledge being barred from driving from the previous offense in the glove compartment.  Per the New York Post (complete sentences this time, so I'll cite!) and AP:

    The smoking gun against Hilton, [Judge] Sauer explained, was a document she had signed after being pulled over in January, acknowledging being told by police that she understood her license was suspended for four months following her no-contest plea to a September arrest for driving under the influence.

    When she was pulled over again Feb. 27 and her car was impounded, officers found the document in the glove compartment.

    "She signs it, she carries it in her car for two months. In my opinion, she knew her license was suspended," Sauer said.

    Paris' mom's attempt at snark does not seem to have helped:

    Hilton's mother, Kathy, sarcastically dismissed the judge as a publicity-seeking scoundrel, blurting out "May I have your autograph?" as he rendered his decision.

    Treating judges like "the help" does not cut it anywhere, for anyone.

    I'm currently working on an appeal in another state for a third-time DWI offender, who has received the mandatory minimum sentence of 180 days' jail (in addition to the fines, penalties, surcharges, and license suspensions).  In his case, the State is appealing the sentence, because the judge had the temerity to allow him to serve the sentence on the weekends (a legal sentence) and the jailer says it would be too inconvenient to obey the court's judgment, so he should serve it in one lump.  Who gives a sh*t that his business will be destroyed and all the rest - the jailer's convenience is primary here.

    So, while Paris got a harsh sentence, it's no more harsh than a lot of other Joes and Janes get - and neither Paris nor her parents helped matters with their behavior.

    oops - forgot the (none / 0) (#19)
    by scribe on Sat May 05, 2007 at 06:58:38 AM EST
    link!  And it's not AP, though I thought it had been.

    values of punishment (4.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lawstudent on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:29:40 AM EST
    Jail should be a last resort for violent offenders from whom society needs to be protected.

    There are a lot more reasons that people are put in jail other than to protect the general public.  There is deterrence, retribution, rehabilitation, etc.  It would be a pretty scary world if we abided by your sole principle for punishment.

    It's a no-brainer that she received a harsher penalty because of "who she is"...and that's because "who she is" mandated a different punishment in hopes of avoiding future incidents.  She didn't receive a harsher penalty than the law would allow.

    Besides, what do you suggest?  Fining her?  Taking her license away (oops, can't do that again)?  She'll probably make a reality show on her time in jail and end up profiting from it anyway.  She's a mockery of the entire system, and this judge said enough is enough.

    I know people who've done time in (4.00 / 1) (#23)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Sat May 05, 2007 at 11:55:47 AM EST
    LA County and Ventura county jails. They're certainly not great, but they're not as bad as some might think. Non of my frineds were Paris Hilton though, so she may have more or less hurdles inside.

    Anyway, I think many, if not most, in LA County only do about 10% of their time due to over crowding...

    Wow (none / 0) (#1)
    by squeaky on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:23:45 PM EST
    Quite the understatement:

    Paris' defense was a little weak

    But as always you offer a compassionate and refreshing take.

    She does have major attitude though. I am sure she pissed off the judge. If someone who was poor and dark skinned acted like she did he would probably gotten the full 90 days and plue extra for contempt.

    question: (none / 0) (#3)
    by gollo on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:37:08 PM EST
    Does this mean that appearance at the sentencing for the first offence was not mandatory?

    And if so, why is it not mandatory?

    Poor Paris. (none / 0) (#4)
    by clio on Fri May 04, 2007 at 08:44:55 PM EST
    Don't I recall that she never graduated from high school?  Where has her mother been all this time?  Children who aren't raised, but merely allowed to become older have a hard time even when cushioned by lots of money.

    Paris could never survive in the LA jail, but surely her lawyer will arrange for her to go to one of those Celebrity Jails.  It's not like money is a problem.  

    As far as the time I believe I heard on Olbermann that Paris did not attend or even schedule her alcohol counseling sessions. The judge might have been influenced by that. Besides, will she serve the whole 45 days?  Won't she get some time off if she behaves?  Still, it will be tough on someone who has evidently never had to do anything she didn't want to do until now.

    S he'll be released early (none / 0) (#6)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:01:57 PM EST
    because the L.A. County detention facilities are over-crowded and subject to court orders on maximum number being housed.  She'll also get statutory credits for "good behaviour."  I'm glad she is off the road for awhile at least.

    High profile cases are not treated the same (none / 0) (#5)
    by JSN on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:01:41 PM EST
    as ordinary cases the presence of the press prohibits that. It seems to me that 45 days for driving while barred is long because 30 days is more typical in our jurisdiction.

    Not showing up on time with a feeble defense probably annoyed the judge. I am amazed at how many defendants and their relatives do things to annoy judges.

    A lot of court appearances have been eliminated and case processing is done with paper or electronic records. When they call it assembly line justice that is very close to the truth because some of the court procedures look like they were designed by an industrial engineer.

    California Vehicle Code (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:06:13 PM EST
    section 23103:

    a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

    (b) Any person who drives any vehicle in any offstreet parking facility, as defined in subdivision (c) of Section 12500, in willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property is guilty of reckless driving.

    (c) Persons convicted of the offense of reckless driving shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail for not less than five days nor more than 90 days or by a fine of not less than one hundred forty-five dollars ($145) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that fine and imprisonment, except as provided in Section 23104.


    I made > 50k twice in 30+ years working, (none / 0) (#8)
    by seabos84 on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:10:52 PM EST
    I'd get ... 6 months ? for 1/2 the crap she's pulled.

    let me tangent a bit - I've despised the fascists since RayGun, and I've considered them fascists since RayGun 1979, when I was 19.  BUT

    john dean, patty hearst, ollie north ... these rich / powerful slime NEVER really pay for their crimes against the community - not the way us pee-ons pay.  

    median household income in the u.s.a. is about 45k ? how many $500 / hour lawyers does that family budget buy ? how much justice do we-the-peee-ons get? what we can pay for ;)

    maybe she should have done what the judge told her to do, like many of the rest of us mere mortals would have done.


    i'm goin w/seaboss on this one (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by skippybkroo on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:08:51 PM EST
    jeralyn, i know you're a defense attorney and thusly have a soft spot for the accused, but i agree w/seaboss.  if it was you or me (or someone dark-skinned), we'd be in jail now for the crap she's pulled.

    coming late w/a lame excuse is insulting to the court.  if i get my license suspended, you bet i personally would actually read the court papers (or at least talk to my lawyer, not my "assistant liason") to find out exactly where i stood legally in regards to driving.

    (for the record, i have, and i did.  and i never got busted for violating probation.)

    i'm glad she got her sentence (it could have been worse...twice as worse, in fact). it's an instance of justice triumphing over celebrity.  

    tho as i said on my blog, if she had shot someone in the face or cut someone's throat, she'd get off scott free.


    In cases such as this... (none / 0) (#9)
    by Dadler on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:26:51 PM EST
    ...with the wildly wealthy are involved, what would make more sense is to simply employ stiff fines, that increase with one's ability to pay.  A cool million or two for this type of violation hits Hilton in the wallet, but not so wildly that it is inequitable (in fact, it probably levels the fine playing field if anything).  We tax progressively (in theory), why should we not fine accordingly?

    dadler - Don't faint (none / 0) (#11)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:30:28 PM EST
    But you have a point.

    sorry, i had to go to the smelling salts (none / 0) (#24)
    by Dadler on Sat May 05, 2007 at 01:07:37 PM EST
    but i'm back.  barely.

    Paris will make money off this (none / 0) (#25)
    by Slado on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:44:55 PM EST
    So in fact she'll probably not pay anything because she'll come out ahead.

    I can already see the "Viva la Resistance" t'shirts and garb being pumped out with Paris' official logo and signature.

    It's sad but this is probably a good thing for the Paris brand.

    Even better then Rehab


    L. A. County jail (none / 0) (#10)
    by JSN on Fri May 04, 2007 at 09:31:42 PM EST
    L. A. County Jail, Cook County Jail  and the NY City Jail all claim they are the largest jail in the free world. Obviously two of them are wrong but I can't understand why they would make such a claim.

    Many years ago my wife would visit  the Sybil Brand jail for women as part of Friends Outside (a Quaker group) and in those  days the inmates were mostly in for drugs, forgery, prostitution and theft. The jail was so large she thought it was a prison. In those days it was unusual for a woman to be in jail charged with a violent crime. Unfortunately that is no longer the case. I understand the Sybil Brand jail was closed and the women moved to an even larger jail.

    One of the services Friends Outside provided was to help the women keep in touch with their children. If a single mother with minor children is in jail someone has to see that the children are properly cared for. this may mean the are placed under the jurisdiction of juvenile court and placed in a foster home or a group home. I suspect that juvenile court and foster care are overloaded in L. A. County which adds to the stress.

    Have to agree on for pay jail. (none / 0) (#13)
    by clio on Fri May 04, 2007 at 10:56:41 PM EST
    If other celebs can do their time in pay jails Paris should be able to do so too.

    She's been shocked enough and fair is fair.

    In Palace Detention? (none / 0) (#14)
    by magster on Fri May 04, 2007 at 11:21:05 PM EST
    Clubbing release?

    Seriously, all my misdemeant first time Driving Under Suspension clients usually get the option of one week in jail or one month in-home detention.

    She is probably being made an example of.

    erudite paris (none / 0) (#16)
    by Sumner on Sat May 05, 2007 at 03:10:56 AM EST
    do you know what this is that Paris Hilton is reading in this linked picture?

    Oh, Oh, Oh, let me guess (none / 0) (#28)
    by Freewill on Sat May 05, 2007 at 07:23:04 PM EST
    Neither does she!



    A tough one (none / 0) (#17)
    by HK on Sat May 05, 2007 at 04:36:27 AM EST
    On the one hand, I totally agree that imprisonment should be reserved for violent offenders.  Overcrowding is a huge problem and those who present a threat to society need to be removed from it far more than those who are simply in violation of probation...

    On the other hand, Paris clearly didn't take much notice of her sentence for alcohol-related reckless driving (a serious offence which can easily claim lives) so where is a court supposed to go from there?  To argue that her 'people' didn't tell her the right information is not just weak; she had a responsibility to find out for herself.  If I were in that situation and said, 'Oh, my husband reads all the mail and he didn't explain it properly to me' the judge probably would have laughed in my face.

    A shorter sentence, with time off for good behaviour, would have been enough to make her take better notice next time, or as Dadler suggested an income-related fine.

    I hope she comes out of this experience (none / 0) (#30)
    by Freewill on Sat May 05, 2007 at 08:17:23 PM EST
    with her head full of corn rows. Now that will make fashion history!

    A prison tat would be awesome and a definitely a bonus surprise! Paris Hilton with a Love / Hate prison tattoo on her knuckles. Sweet!

    Poor Paris, she's going to have to learn how to fold someone else's underwear and clean their bunks because I really don't think she's built to defend off heavies. Unless of course she helps fund Bubbaetts help for the needy fund! Now that's extortion in prison, however, snitches do get stitches!

    Paris? what about mommy? (none / 0) (#37)
    by ltgesq on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:43:57 PM EST
    My wife is a superior court judge in indiana, and I am a criminal defense lawyer.

    we both agreed that mom would have spent a weekend in custody for direct contempt of court.  Given the bull***t story ms. hilton gave at her hearing, i am surprised she only got 45 days.

    We have judges in this state that give 6 months on first offense misdemeanors to working people who have family depending on them.  The fact that the only person inconvenienced by Paris going to jail is Paris, tends to hurt.

    Sadly no BS.. (none / 0) (#39)
    by pbaker on Sun May 06, 2007 at 10:04:52 PM EST
    Given the little world she lives in, her story is actually credible.  She is most certainly not stupid, but is still incredible naive - almost childlike.  It's not that uncommon.

    Most people get that knocked out of them in the hard school of life, but I know a number of these people who never get near real life (unless by VERY hard experiences such as being shot at or being kidnapped and tortured as a child - there are serious downsides too).

    I think her advisors should be given the sack - they have been afraid to tell Paris what a mess she was getting into.  Wrong choice between hanging on to a very well-paid job or doing what is right, I guess.

    As for her mom, I agree.  She was not helping, and could overall be responsible for Paris not taking things seriously, but I think Paris herself really has been overly punished for being a celebrity.

    There is plenty of history of lighter sentences and of sufficient time to put affairs in order.  Paris has been given none, and the unseemly haste by which she's stuffed into prison seems to be suspect and could possibly interfere with an appeal.

    Coincidence?  I don't buy it.


    Making someone an example is NOT justice (none / 0) (#38)
    by pbaker on Sun May 06, 2007 at 09:50:46 PM EST
    I don't buy the concept of "justice" here.  45 days because she's a socialite and is thus assumed to function as an example.

    Let me start off that I have very personal experience with drunk drivers so I had to step back quite a bit to see the bigger picture, but it still stinks IMHO.

    When it comes to worldly matters Paris Hilton is really still a kid, in a golden cage.  She knows the press, she knows a vague world out there via her advisors (who should be sacked) - but not reality.

    I agree with a custodial punishment because money would not have registered, but 45 days is excessive.  Worse, she'll need to be isolated for her safety (and that of her convictors, God help them is anything should happen to her) which will make it very much worse.  This is not a punishment, this is pure malice.

    In that context it is also interesting to note the unseemly haste by which she is meant to go to prison.  Others get the time to get their life in order first, but that seems not be worthy of consideration here.  Why?  Worried she may appeal?  Something that was overlooked in the proceedings but thankfully not observed by the defense?

    Lastly, what good will this serve?  Send a warning to all young girls?  When Paris comes out she'll have one hell of a party (and just let someone else drive).  And it's not like she needs to go for a mortgage, a job or a loan somewhere so the record will mean exactly nothing - great example.

    Actually, with this self righteous stand there's a little extra future problem lurking: if the Hilton's employ someone to keep an eye on the respective members' that convicted her (just in the interest of the public, of course) they better stick rather rigidly to the super safe "let's not even THINK about breaking the law - oh my God a parking ticket" or they'll be fed to the press like they have used Paris Hilton.

    Because that's what it really was - extra punishment for being famous. She didn't stand a chance.

    That's not justice.

    Mintz Fired (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Mon May 07, 2007 at 02:43:14 PM EST
    Paris Hilton, who was sentenced to 45 days in jail, has called the judgment cruel and unwarranted -- and fired her spokesperson [Elliot Mintz] who she blames for the incident.

    In court the 26-year-old heiress claimed before Superior Court Judge Michael Sauer that her publicist Elliot Mintz had told her she was allowed to drive in work-related situations. She also claimed the veteran rep, who started out in the 1970s through his links with John Lennon, had told her repeatedly that the license was only suspended for 30 days.


    squeaky (none / 0) (#44)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon May 07, 2007 at 09:16:27 PM EST
    The checks in the mail...

    Its only a cold sore...

    The Beamer is paid for...

    I'm from headquarters and I'm here to help you.


    No More Free Passes? Wouldn't That Be Sweet. (none / 0) (#46)
    by toddski50 on Tue May 08, 2007 at 07:10:26 PM EST
    Yeah definitely never smart to be late to court, and she didn't help herself by throwing out a lame excuse. Didn't she get stopped twice for driving with a suspended license? Wasn't there a signed document in the glove compartment that surrendered her license? This is not a celebrity or wealth bashing session, but it is a common sense session. Obviously, just because you're rich enough to be relying on your 'assistant' for something as important as info on a DUI license suspension and probation, doesn't mean you're smart enough to ask someone who knows what they're talking about. There are things someone's assistant should be responsible for and there are things that people, regardless of who they are, should want to be aware of and take care of themselves. If he told her it wasn't illegal to run a person over, would she just keep driving after mowin' somebody down? I mean come on.

    It's almost like she needs a babysitter. It's actually kind of sad. This family is freakin' loaded, yet they didn't have one of their lawyers constantly updating her on the legal situation? Shouldn't she have one of the family lawyers in her 5, just in case.

    I'm not all about Paris spending time in jail for her offenses like some people, but I am against a free pass in court because of wealth, fame, political influence, or social standing. If she's the beginning of a change then I'm all for it. Besides, she's not going to serve 45 days anyway. She'll probably be out in a week. Who knows, maybe she'll learn something about real life in there, but I highly doubt it.  

    Paris is a joke (none / 0) (#47)
    by onetime on Sun May 13, 2007 at 01:19:45 AM EST
    She hot but she needs to serve her time in jail for breaking the law. If Paris does not get convicted than should all the other dui driver not get convicted also?  Paris should be a good role model and get the dui law banned in all the 50 states. If it was you or me who got the dui, didn't go to class, and drove on a suspended license we would go to jail also.