But then the judge has to determine what is important enough to be considered by the jury, The prosecution has to be given a similar latitude to yours in presenting evidence and argument, and the jury has to take in all that and determine if, on balance, the accused is guilty and if she is as guilty as she is accused of being. As an outsider, I get what the media provides, and I hope that I can exclude the excesses that the media throws in. Before attempting what the Jury does, I have to try to apply the limitations the Judge does to the information I get. This case seems to be a little easier in which to do that. as far as the facts go, I think the media has been reasonably straight.

I am not the defense, the prosecutor or the Judge. I am an outsider, a lot closer to the jury. In this case the facts are clear that Paris was drunk (legally) in the first place and as a juror I would consider the strength of the case and the fact that the high-priced attorneys (read strong and effective advocates) in her corner have made sure that the defense got every benefit before I ever got the information in court that said what she did. (Keep this in mind.)

I am aware that Paris was charged with DWI but that she was given a relatively easy punishment with no jail time. I am aware that she has been stopped - twice - for driving without a valid license. She would not have been stopped without having committed a traffic infraction. This is stuff the Defense had to admit. They are really good defense attorneys. That tells me that this is the minimum of bad information that will be offered about Paris. I can and will use the capability of her attorneys as an indication of what degree of importance I give the information I am given. Then I will consider this in terms of my own life. [That's why we have juries, right? Otherwise we would leave these decisions to judges.]

My last ticket was in January 1991. Before that it was December 1984. I used to not give a sh*t. Then I learned from my mistakes. Apparently , Paris didn't give a sh*t. Twice she didn't give a sh*t.

Apparently something needs to get her attention. That something is, logically, jail time.

Her family, particularly her mother, seem to have done her no favor. Paris' reaction to the decision by the Judge rather suggests that Paris has no concept that she is just another person in society.

Those of us with some empathy for this poor woman can only hope that this relatively minor event and punishment can get through to her. Perhaps she will become aware that her sh*t DOES stink, just like that of everyone else in the world. [Yeah, yeah, different odor depending on diet, but the odor is still there.]

As a generic person presented to me through the media, I frankly don't like Paris Hilton. But as a child of privilege who has suddenly had to face the reality that she really isn't all that special, in spite of the money and power of her family, I really hope that this can be The kind of educational experience she needs to become a relatively healthy human being.

I am sufficiently cynical to doubt that this will get through to her. The power, wealth and control available to her family makes it very unlikely that Paris will get much positive out of this.

A defense attorney, doing what defense attorneys do best, is not going her help her much as a person. Their job is to keep her out of jail. You aren't going to help her, Jeralyn. It's not in your skill set. I really have very little hope for Paris as a person.

I love you, Jeralyn, but your twisted efforts here are well short of your usual comprehensive logic.  Find people who have driven twice and also failed to live up to counseling requirements of their sentence.  THEN you will have a genuine comparison.

To my knowledge driving without insurance has never killed anyone, so I think the comparison is a bit of a stretch. Paris got ticketed three times I believe, in different jurisdictions, for driving while her license was suspended.  That demonstrates a continuing contempt for the law, by someone who was on probation and who could easily afford to have herself driven everywhere she needs to go.

It seems odd that this prosecutor's wife would be driving without insurance, and then fail to report an accident even though she knew the other driver was going to do so, that's just not too bright. I don't know if California is a no-fault insurance state or not, that might have some bearing on her accident, and why it went unreported.  Her license was suspended for two years as a result of these offenses, that seems rather extraordinary.  I wonder what kind of driving record she has.  

As to the parallel with Paris, was Delgadillo's wife caught numerous times continuing to drive on a suspended license?  Was she on probation for her offenses and did she violate that probation?  If not then I think that also tends to invalidate the comparison.

Paris Hilton is a promiscuous young woman who enjoys sex, nightlife and international travel.

It destroys the very definition of "equal protection" for everyone to consider it perfectly normal when any case gets special treatment solely because people are watching and might otherwise get the "wrong idea."  The sad thing is that people have no problem with some people getting special treatment under the law, as long as it's more harsh than what others get.