Breaking: Paris going back to jail; Update: Shep Smith snark video added! Update: More Shep snark!
posted at 3:10 pm on June 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
According to Shep Smith, she was dragged screaming from the courtroom. Schadenfreudemania!
Update: CNN’s viewers are unloading on them for the wall-to-wall coverage of this crap. The anchors sonorously agree, then go back to covering it.
Update: Hilarious. It’s cool to so much righteous indignation about all this, from the famous and non-famous alike.
Update: One mo’ time!
Update: Shep’s not real thrilled about having to cover it either.
Update: MSNBC is promising “special coverage” of Parismania tonight at 9. Will Joe “Real Journalist” Scarborough be anchoring? That’s his time slot.
Update: Shep melts down. “This is over the freaking top!”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »
How can anyone feel sorry for this twit? Recognize a spoiled brat when you see one. What if she had killed someone while driving around drunk?
Will she learn anything from it? Nah, it always has been, and always will be- all about Paris- nothing more.
Scotsman on June 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
Who gives a rat’s backside about Paris Hilton . . . the sane world (if such a place exists) must think we are a bunch of flaming idiots.
rplat on June 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
For a DUI? I’m confident that if you look hard enough you’ll be able to find people who have gone to jail over that one.
Esthier on June 8, 2007 at 4:25 PM
The average citizen doesn’t think they are above the law.
Paris Hilton has failed the attitude test. I don’t care what the judge or geraldo say, none of us has all the information that the judge has. You don’t know what would have happened if Paris had passed the attitude test. Poor people don’t thumb their noses at the judge like Paris has done.
A crime allows for 45 days. A contrite person gets probation. A defiant person, like Paris, gets the whole 45 days. THAT is why we have judges and that is not treating her harshly. The judge was just easier on the contrite person.
csdeven on June 8, 2007 at 4:26 PM
An emotional child. A social child. Raised by the wolves in the media. This dingbat doesn’t have a single clue about life, and I think she’s got a steep learning curve for the next few weeks.
Jaibones on June 8, 2007 at 4:26 PM
Congratulations! You now have the distinction of having produced the dumbest statement I’ve ever read!
I want you to think about this.
1) Paris pleaded out to a DUI.
2) She showed up 10 minutes late to enter that plea.
3) She blew off community service and alcohol awareness requirements that were part of that plea.
4) She was pulled over while driving on a suspended license.
5) She was pulled over because she was doing 70 mph at night with no lights on.
6) She was pulled over again AFTER being warned by the po-po after the last incident.
7) She turned herself in to prison after a night of red-carpet partying with MTV.
8) She had a party with catering and gourmet cupcakes after being sent home.
9) She showed up 2 hours late to her court hearing because she was waiting on her publicist to show up with umbrellas to hide her from the paparazzi.
I say, throw the damn book.
fusionaddict on June 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
But you know it’s not and you know it won’t be. Therefore, it’s injustice.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Best episode of “Punk’d” ever.
I can’t wait for Ashton to poke his head into her cell.
fogw on June 8, 2007 at 4:27 PM
Just on this story, or anytime? :)
wytammic on June 8, 2007 at 4:28 PM
Too late. I for one will never spend a nickel on any Hilton branded product so long as I live.
I will not be an enabler of this crap.
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
that guy in the back will be on Kimmel tonight. -he’s funny
Opinionnation on June 8, 2007 at 4:29 PM
You can’t put people in jail for what they think or their
“attitude” as you define it. If they could, these Liberal judges would lock us all up. You need to be really careful what your advocating for. You need to think through the consequences.
There are 12M+ people in this country who act as if they are above the law and they were almost rewarded with citizenship.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:30 PM
The real injustice here is that the impersonater in the music video isn’t more famous. She’s way hotter than the real Paris Hilton.
RightOFLeft on June 8, 2007 at 4:32 PM
That about covers it.
But I’ll man up and admit something: after loathing this creature for years – even her sex tape was a talentless disappointment – the truth is that now I just feel sorry for her. I really do.
If I had my way, they’d let her go. Then they’d imprison both of her parents for a decade. And all of her handlers, press people, agents, and everybody that convinced her she’s some bizzarro-world prima donna.
Then for fun, I’d have the editors of “Us” and “People” and every other tabloid publicly lynched; but the “real news” organizations, their editors and CEOs should face something worse. You can’t expect much from “People” – but Fox and CNN? The editors and the anchors and whoever decides this crap is newsworthy should all be strung up. By their tingly bits.
I realize exactly how liberal this makes me sound, but I just feel sorry for the kid. And, yeah, she’s a kid: she may be 26, but she has the maturity of a 10 year old. Thanks to all the aforementioned idiots who basically created this monstrosity.
Yeah, she needs to shut up and do her freakin’ 3 week rest and recovery and then go home. And if she drives drunk again, she deserves to be hog-tied. Well, except she might like that. Just shoot her and put me out of my misery in that case.
But I blame the system that created her. She is the living embodiment of the things that are wrong in our culture. I say free poor Paris, and go after all the Frankensteins that created her – and that includes all the cretins who create the demand for this putrid pablum.
She’s no different than an un-housetrained puppy that soils itself. She’s doing exactly what she was trained to do. Which, basically, is shit herself.
/quasi-liberal off
So has she written a book yet or what?
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 4:32 PM
She is a little girl who has no perspective on life, thanks to her parents and other enablers. Even if she did what she did, the people of the world she has lived in are not held to this kind of punishment. I personally feel sorry for her, no matter how much I dislike her as a person.
To take joy from anothers pain is not a good thing.
abinitioadinfinitum on June 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I thought it was funny at first, but it’s gotten out of hand now. Poorly handled on all sides.
brak on June 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM
I watched a Fox News promo this morning in which their voice guy called Paris a “Celebutard”, and promised in depth prime time coverage. Has this thing run again, or was it pulled when they realized it should have been “Celebutante”?
Just throwing that out there, because I would love to see it again. Lots of un-journalistic cursing this morning, as well.
Krydor on June 8, 2007 at 4:33 PM
Then allow me. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!
Whoever is claiming people don’t do time after a DUI have no idea what they’re talking about. The 13 years I owned a bar in Chicago many of my customers served jail time for DUI’s that never caused any accident. Sentences varied from having to go in at 6pm and then let out at 7am to work. I had to pick him up everyday since he worked for me. To Dave who did 6 months. Most would have to do anywhere from 30 to 60 days. Didn’t do much for my business, especially when I’d lose 2 or 3 regulars at a time.
Capitalist Infidel on June 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM
let me take this out of the theoretical and into the actual. I know people in CA with multiple DUIs, DWOLs and failure to appears who never did a day. Now tell me she’s being treated like everybody else…
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM
BigOldDog
In our judicial system we choose to give judges a certain amount of leeway in sentencing. Within those boundaries, he can administer the sentence he feels appropriate. That’s justice. Don’t like it? Impeach the judge, or get a law passed that enforces identical sentencing, regardless of other factors.
In junior high I got suspended for something other people got detention for… that’s how life goes sometimes. And I’d be willing to bet my “up yours” attitude had something to do with the fact that I was treated more harshly.
Laura on June 8, 2007 at 4:35 PM
FINALLY one of these elite attention whores gets some consequences.
unamused on June 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Anybody know the actual relationship between Hilton hotels and Paris’ family? I was under the impression that these people are not really as rich as they make out, and no longer have a controlling interesting – or much of a financial stake at all – in the Hilton, Inc.
Any info? Because if my impression is wrong, I’d like to do my part and stay at a Sheraton, too.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 4:37 PM
Then in CHICAGO she would be treated fairly. In CA, she is being treated differently.
You didn’t seriously just compare this to Junior High did you?
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Not that anyone would confess, but I’m sure a couple people either reading this thread or posting in this thread have recieved a DUI in the past. Perhaps even 2 DUIs or more.
You are not evil people. You made a mistake. We all make mistakes. I’ve made mistakes.
More than likely, you had a good lawyer reduce the charge down to reckless driving, paid a fine, and moved on. Fact is, you were guilty. You were legally drunk and driving.
Now, the million dollar question is: Did you drink and drive again? The odds are pretty good that you have.
My point is that instead of learning from your mistake, you soon relapsed because as inconvenient as what the first DUI was, the punishment was not harsh enough to drive the point home.
I bet if you were saddled with the humiliation of time in jail, you’d be more adament not to repeat your mistake. Jail time was a possibility, but good lawyering got you off.
We need to enforce the maximum penalties on DUI. I don’t want anyone to go to jail, but if it will correct reckless behavior, it’s best for you and others you may hurt in the future.
natesnake on June 8, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Between last night and now, I’m going to need to make a run to the store…jk.
amerpundit on June 8, 2007 at 4:39 PM
I absolutely hate the whole concept of celebrity and I especially hate those who have gained celebrity for nothing more than “who” they are.
That being said, I have been a criminal prosecutor for a very long time and I have never seen someone sent to jail for this length of time for what she did. Far from being treated less harshly for her celebrity, it is my opinion that she is being treated more harshly.
As far as “buying” your way out of jail, that is as common as flies on “open meat” – they are called “Fines” and are often imposed in lieu of community service or jail, or even as an alternative, especially in a DWS case. Heck, what government body do you know of who couldn’t use a few more bucks?
Maybe the judge is trying to send a message, either to Ms. Hilton personally, or to those who might look up to here (shallow as their lives must be), but doing so at the cost of equal treatment for ALL under the law, is losing sight of the bigger picture.
Fatal on June 8, 2007 at 4:39 PM
Now why is it that tomas hasn’t chimed in on this topic? Oh that’s right… he had a stomach ache over at the G8 Conference.
ricer1 on June 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Oy. You are just determined to suck all the fun out of this for me.
The sentence Hilton received for her multiple infractions and disdain for the court were within the guidelines. The fact that you know people who skated on similar violations speaks not to Hilton being treated to harshly but the lack of prosecution that you bemoan regarding illegals. If we follow your arguement to it’s logical conclusion, nobody should be punished for anything because Juan Valdez is cutting lawns in Texas without a Green Card.
Now stop it. This is a Friday afternoon gift. Enjoy it.
JackStraw on June 8, 2007 at 4:41 PM
Yes, you can. Sentences are at the judges discretion. He could have been lenient, but he didn’t have to be. I know people who have been given harsher sentences for no other reason than their attitudes.
There are several people on this site who know people with just one DUI who have served jail time immediately.
All you’re pointing out is what we should all know. Not everyone gets the same sentence for the same crime. Judges have (as I wrote above) discretion.
Esthier on June 8, 2007 at 4:42 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:38 PM
Of course I did, because on a number of levels it’s very much like junior high, from the bratty behavior, to the lack of comprehension of how consequences work typified by children that age, to the gossip we’re engaging in right now. You can’t see that?
Secondly, the reason we don’t universally have the identical sentencing you advocate is to keep the “human” element in the judicial system. Because with identical, mandated sentencing you get some bozo teenager with a slightly too large bag of weed doing the same hard time as a serial offender dealer. Allowing judges leeway in sentencing is a Good Thing.
Laura on June 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
This is the lowest day in conservative history. Fools claiming that this is the president case that should turn it all around. Justice for all. It’s no wonder the Dems will be ruling for the next 30 years. We deserve it. I had no idea so many conservatives were this ignorant. No wonder we’ve got absolutely nothing done since 1986. I know it sounds like a liberal thing to say but… I hope every stupid ass reveling in this girl’s plight has a daughter in the same situation someday.
Griz on June 8, 2007 at 4:44 PM
Jail is really her only option. She has access to so much money, that a fine isn’t exactly punishment. I mean, really. If she is able to buy a $10,000 Hermes bag, what difference is a fine going to make? For most of us, a stiff fine would be punishment. For Paris, not so much.
pullingmyhairout on June 8, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Could it be that Paris is simply a lot easier to locate because she makes herself so accessible.
And now Bill O. is making fun of John Edwards’ accent.
Thomas H. Cruise…the whole world has lost its damn mind today.
“This whole thing is like being on an acid trip!” -Bill O’Reilly
fusionaddict on June 8, 2007 at 4:46 PM
Amen. And, that settles it for me.
Again, you can make an argument that DUI should be treated more harshly in CA. I wouldn’t disagree. But, everybody should be treated the same regardless of who they are.
When a judge abuses his discretion based on who the person is, that is injustice. The fact that nobody has been able to point to a single case where somebody with her infractions served a single day (we are talking about CA here no East Overshoe) settles the matter that she is being treated differently.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
The difference is that most of us won’t allow our daughters to parade around the world “partying” and becoming a celebutant. Most decent parents would have put an end to her nonsense years ago. But alas, her folks didn’t. The result? Her face is splashed all over the tabloids and her human mistakes are hung out for all to see. It is truly pathetic.
pullingmyhairout on June 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
What, a daughter who makes sex vids and parties like a rock star on your dime?
I hope there isn’t a single person on this site who would treat their daughter the way the Hiltons have treated theirs. If there is one, they certainly deserve to see her locked up in jail.
In fact, they should be on their knees thanking God that she’s just in jail.
Esthier on June 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Furthermore I would bet my last dollar this stupid prik judge has her thrown into the general population where she’ll be raped relentlessly and her blood will be on your hands as well as his. The end is near when a simple gesture of compassion gets flushed down the toilet for media hype. I will also say I hope her parents bankrupt LA with a lawsuit for all lawsuits.
And Rep. Jefferson will walk just like Berger and Clinton and the rest.
Griz on June 8, 2007 at 4:49 PM
I hope you are kidding. I don’t think anyone who posts here wishes that upon her, or anyone for that matter. Blood on my hands? She’s the one who was busted. it’s her own damned fault.
pullingmyhairout on June 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Quite a crowd you hang out with. :(
JayHaw Phrenzie on June 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM
What part of,
did you not understand?
The judge did not legislate from the bench. The judge ordered a penalty that was within state law. Justice was served. That type of justice should be served more often.
natesnake on June 8, 2007 at 4:52 PM
alllllrighty then…….
Limerick on June 8, 2007 at 4:53 PM
Well said!
I tell you one damn thing, my daughter would never be ALLOWED to get into a situation like this because I’d try my damndest to make her respect authority, the law, and herself.
And if some dickhead recorded himself schtupping her in a hotel and then put it out on the internet, I swear by all that is holy they’d never find the entire body.
fusionaddict on June 8, 2007 at 4:53 PM
ah, no, sorry. Junior High analogies don’t work for me. Sorry.
Sorry folks, if you can’t stand up for people you dislike when they are treated differently simply for who they are, then I hope you don’t expect justice for yourself or a loved one in this country.
You can’t pick your relatives my friend. I happen to be in Boston. Thanks for your shot at my character though.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:55 PM
I’ll take that bet. $1,000 sound good? Let me know. Rest assured she won’t be in general population. Certainly not in L.A. If you have more “last dollars” to spare, I’ll be happy to up the ante.
(Griz runs for the hills)
No offense, my Griz-ly friend, but first, there have been plenty of lower days, and recently. Ann Coulter? Immigration? Harriet Miers? The Dubai Ports? I could list 1000 conservative moments far lower than this one; of course, I could also list 1000 happy moments, too.
Quit being so glum, chum. I feel sorry for the girl, too, but I can also understand the other sentiment. Why can’t you?
And if you’re going to call people ignorant, you might want to learn the word “precedent.” At least, I think thats the word you were trying to find. Not really sure what you were trying to say up there.
Rest easy, man. Paris will somehow survive her heart-rending ordeal. :)
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Not all of us live in CA, so the fact that you’re not getting a response may have nothing to do with reality. I know people who have been treated worse than she has.
I know someone who messed up his probation once, and was sent to jail for a week. But I don’t live in California, maybe you people can get away with murder.
Second, I didn’t say the judge was able to look at her as a person. I was only talking about her attitude.
Was she truly sorry?
Will she do it again?
Has she learned anything?
These ARE things a judge can pay attention to when deciding on a punishment.
Esthier on June 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Unfortunately, that would be true for anyone with access to money, but should a wealthy person be sent to jail just because they have money where a poorer person in their same situation would merely get a fine?
And folks seem to be getting it wrong here, she wasn’t being sentenced for a DUII, she was being sentenced for a probation violation on a Driving While Suspended charge. The underlying cause of the suspension may have been a DUII, but the “crime” was driving while suspended. You don’t get punished for the underlying basis of the suspension (if it was for a vehicular manslaughter, would we be advocating for 10 years in prison?), you get punished for what you did.
While jail may have been appropriate, everyone in my jurisdiction has the opportunity to apply for home detention, and many of them would have access to all the comforts of home – regardless of whether its a $12 million dollar mansion or a $120,000 tract house – either one is going to be vastly superior to jail. So denying her even the opportunity to get home detention, when any other person in her position would have been granted that opportunity, IMHO isn’t really “just”.
Fatal on June 8, 2007 at 4:56 PM
Griz,
Can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime. People are of starts who get preferential treatment. Chalk this one up as a life experience for Paris. Consider herself luck it’s only 45 days and not anything like Martha Stewart.
Now, will Wesley Snipes be next?
Kokonut on June 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
But I’ll bet most people here in that situation actually showed up for their court dates, and didn’t think Daddy’s money meant they could ignore the justice system.
see-dubya on June 8, 2007 at 4:57 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:55 PM
Sorry, if you can’t see that the judge is entitled to sentence within certain parameters and that is still well within the boundaries of justice, then I hope you and your family never get mixed up in the justice system because you are destined to be sadly disappointed.
Laura on June 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Trying it again…
Griz,
Can’t do the time, then don’t do the crime. People are sick of stars who get preferential treatment. Chalk this one up as a life experience for Paris. Consider herself lucky that she is only getting 45 days and nothing like Martha Stewart.
Now, will Wesley Snipes be next?
Kokonut on June 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
What part of, it’s never been done in CA and therefore she’s being treated differently didn’t you get? That’s the measurement. Not whether he had a legal right to treat her differently.
I can;t believe I have to defend this Bimbo.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:58 PM
Just wanted to compliment you on your posts.
I might quibble with your conclusions, but its nice to see somebody insert a few actual facts into the discussion. The Internet frustrates me because most debates don’t establish the facts before wandering into opinion.
And your facts are right. Those getting heated over Paris, on either side, should start with those facts.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM
I don’t think JHP was taking a shot at you. He was trying lighten up the debate.
I appreciate having friends or relatives who have gotten pinched with a DUI. Same here. It aint pretty. It sucks.
natesnake on June 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
What did she do? Does anyone have an accurate record of exactly what she did? My google skills are failing me when it comes to getting her record. There were multiple offenses, but nobody seems to agree on how many DUI vs. driving with a suspended license vs. contempt of court violations she has. Without that info, any references to “nobody else has ever been treated this harshly” or “let off this easy” seems rather flimsy.
I thought she was serving time for contempt of court, not for DUI. But in spite of the wall-to-wall coverage in the media, actual facts relating to the case seem to be an endangered species.
taznar on June 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
So, would you say Al Capone shouldn’t have gone to Alcatraz since most tax evaders only get fined?
db on June 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
I wonder if that Sheriff that sprung her has a freezer full of hundred dollar bills?
CAD Daddy on June 8, 2007 at 5:02 PM
Oh well Paris, Its the simple life.. itll be over before ya know it..
Viper1 on June 8, 2007 at 5:03 PM
See above. Didn’t your parents teach you that just because you can do something does not mean you should do it? When people are being treated differently based on who they are we have a problem. That goes all ways. If you are treated differently because of the color of your skin, that’s wrong. If you are treated differently becuase you are a celebrity that is wrong. If you are treated differently because of your class, that is wrong… see? It doesn’t matter if you get better or worse treatment. Different treatment in wrong. If conservatives can’t see that and simply want to see certain people punished more or less harshly than others then I fear for the future.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:03 PM
What part of you are wrong is not getting through? She was sentenced on parole violation and NOT DUI. Just because you know some people in CA who didn’t go to jail for DUI offenses means nothing to this case.
You don’t have to. You choose to. Why is the question.
JackStraw on June 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM
I’m not versed enough in federal prison assignments in the 1930s to know if your statement is accurate or not.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:04 PM
Is there a link to a reputable source to back up this now legendary claim that NOBODY in California history, after violating probation and DWS, ever faced a day in jail?
I frankly find it awfully hard to believe it has never, ever happened. I’m not even sure how you prove this negative assertion in the first place, unless somebody has a database of every DUI/DWS/probation violation case in California history.
Just curious. In my very limited time with a Michigan prosecutor’s office, I definitely saw people do jail time in similar situations. And I saw it vary wildly, depending on the who the judge was, what the probation officer recommended, and that attitude of the defendant.
This claim that its (gasp) the first time in history seems awfully fishy, both logically and legally. Info much appreciated.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:06 PM
The idea is to punish, right? I’m not really sure about the answer, I’m not a lawyer – just a mom with strong opinions. But it would make sense to me that a fine is not a punishment for someone in her financial situation. That’s a slap on the wrist to her. An “oh well” moment. Not punishment.
And the judge probably is trying to make her an example. I’ll say it again, it’s unfortunate that her parents didn’t put a stop to her “partying.” (They encouraged it, perhaps?) She put herself into the spotlight and is now, unfortunately for her, suffering the consequences of her very bad, bad, behavior. The judge probably thought “enough is enough” with all these celebrities and is using her as the example of what not to do.
pullingmyhairout on June 8, 2007 at 5:06 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:03 PM
My parents taught me – going back to that junior high school suspension – that if I am guilty of something, the punishment other people receive is entirely irrelevant. Other people’s bad behavior didn’t excuse my bad behavior, and other people’s getting a free pass didn’t give me a free pass.
Laura on June 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
Why? Because people in exactly the same situation DUI, then DWOL, etc., do no time in CA. Judge Nap and others have shown that. It doesn’t matter if it was a parole violation, etc, we are talking about what happens to other people in that area with EXACTLY the same set of circumstances.
If Paris Hilton Was Paris Hiltonez, illegal alien, she wouldn’t have to do a day.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:09 PM
After reading through this thread I now know why congress can never agree on anything….
I understand the ‘this aint fair’ argument but come on people this isn’t injustice. This is a judge, using his discretion as a judge, to punish an offender based on the law. If he couldn’t have issued this sentence then he wouldn’t have. I believe csdeven had it right way up the thread here….if she would have just bitten her lip and taken the punishment as given then it would have been over in a matter of days, not weeks. Instead, I believe, he sees it as a game for her and he simply is telling her that it is no game.
Limerick on June 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM
That explains why you don’t understand or expect justice to be fair and blind.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM
I’m pretty sure you just came up with a really good Saturday Night Live sketch. Call NBC.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 4:34 PM
And I know plenty (no less than 5) here in SoCal, who served between three months and a year on their very first DUI. California is actually cracking down big time on driving under the influence. No I’m not going to give you their names, but I assure you these are people I know personally.
But you are right; she isn’t being treated like everybody else. Only the wealthy and famous privileged elite get treated like she is being treated. The rest of us average people would never have gotten out after three days, and the rest of us average people would have done our time (every single minute of it) in the general population. But you just go on dreaming about how poor little Paris is getting treated unfairly.
doriangrey on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:10 PM
Oh, please! Give it a rest. Judges consider a whole range of factors, mitigating and otherwise, when sentencing. If you want identical sentencing to be mandated, go ahead and lobby for that. Good luck.
Laura on June 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
First, “There is not one other person among 22,000 prisoners in that county serving time for a parole violation on a misdemeanor”
Second, she was not convicted of DUI. She plead to reckless driving. So, she is in jail for 45 days for a parole violation on reckless driving.
All according to Tacopina on Fox.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Yes he can, and he should.
Contrite people get the breaks.
People with jobs get the breaks.
People with families get the breaks.
Paris is none of those things so she doesn’t get the same consideration. It isn’t like he invented the punishment, the punishment was allowed by law and he leveled the full weight of law on a scoff law who had no extenuating circumstances to mitigate the punishment.
csdeven on June 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
Correct. He took into account who she was and treated her differently than every other citizen and illegal alien in that County. That is the definition of injustice.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:15 PM
You’re right Professor. It’s a precedent in heart rendering or heart rending whichever you prefer.
Griz on June 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM
I guess you haven’t heard of mandatory sentencing laws either. Usually they are reserved for felonies, not misdemeanors.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
If Paris Hilton Was Paris Hiltonez, illegal alien, she wouldn’t have to do a day.
TheBigOldDog
But she isn’t, she’s Paris Hilton, celebutard scofflaw. She broke the law, and continued to break the law and now she’s in jail when all she had to do was hire a driver.
No sympathy from me.
Krydor on June 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
“That’s HOT!”
silenced majority on June 8, 2007 at 5:19 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:18 PM
Certainly I’ve heard of them, I referenced them earlier in the thread when explaining to you why it’s better for judges to have leeway in sentencing – even though, in the case, you don’t personally like the outcome.
Laura on June 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
You must be kidding right? You think those are the kind of people who get breaks? LOL!
You know who gets breaks? Connected people.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Judge gives Mary Winkler 3 years for killing preacher husband, but says she’ll only serve 7 months in mental facility
Griz on June 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
For the last time, this isn’t about sympathy for her. It is about equal treatment.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:21 PM
BigOldDog – no offense, but there are a couple big ‘ol logical gaps in your arguments.
Let’s start with the obvious. Are you suggesting that in all cases, every single person facing identical charges/convictions should receive precisely the same sentence? If your answer is yes – why do we have judges? What possible purpose do they serve?
And then there’s the less obvious: the truth is that as long as we have sentencing ranges, in every single case, there logically MUST be one person who received the highest sentence in that category. Always. It’s unavoidable.
So let’s pretend I believe that Paris’ treatment is actually unusual (and when did it go from “never in California” to “in L.A. County jail?). Even if nobody has ever been this harshly treated – so what? Why NOT Paris? What about the guy who now holds the record for the SECOND harshest treatment under these circumstances?
I just don’t get it. In every single case, in every jurisdiction, with every crime, there is one dude or gal who holds that record for highest sentence. How exactly is that a problem?
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:22 PM
Check out the LA County Sheriff Department Inmate Information Center webpage.
http://app4.lasd.org/iic/ajis_search.cfm
Type in “Paris” and “Hilton”, first and last name.
Kokonut on June 8, 2007 at 5:22 PM
For the last time, this isn’t about sympathy for her. It is about equal treatment.
TheBigOldDog
Well, then I have to say that you used a pretty bad example. The immigrant thing is a red herring.
Why not, for instance, compare her treatment to the treatment of other citizens? Unless the underlying thing is that you should treat citizens like immigrants or somesuch.
Krydor on June 8, 2007 at 5:26 PM
Ann Coulter states “O.J. kills two people and walks, while
Paris Hilton goes to jail”.
gary on June 8, 2007 at 5:30 PM
The role of judges is not simply to hand down a sentence. They have guidelines to determine proper sentences for people found guilty or who have plead guilty. When a judge ignores the norms in a community simply because he does not like the person standing before him, which has been clearly shown in this case, that is injustice. Of 22,000 people in jail in that County there are ZERO people in for parole violations on misdemeanors.
If you want to make the case she was treated fairly, please produce one case, just one, in that county (or open it up to all of CA) where a person was sentenced to time for a similar set of circumstances. If you can find one, then I would say she received fair and equal treatment. Otherwise, she was treated unfairly be definition.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:35 PM
Tears ladies and gentlemen. Tears is what got us into this argument. One look at those tears and con-hearts all over the country suddenly melted. It’s true! If this had happened without the tears, if she had said fine then and walked thru the jail house door like a lady, would we be having this argument? I don’t think so. This thread is pushing close to 200 comments…..all because of tears.
Limerick on June 8, 2007 at 5:36 PM
If you dis the Judge by violating his generosity by allowing you probation in the first place expect that the contempt of court jail time will be enough to make you think twice the next time.
Speakup on June 8, 2007 at 5:37 PM
Laura and Kensington,
Who encourages her behavior. Who buys her sex tapes. Who hired her for that sexy car wash burger commercial…. then the morale police come along- judge and jealous others and want to knock her down a peg-make an example of her.
Stone her metaphorically for exactly what the public wanted from her in the first place. It’s so F’d up!
splashtc on June 8, 2007 at 5:42 PM
I’m going to give you a chance to read what you just wrote again. That was some horribly circular reasoning.
If judges have guidelines – why do you somehow think a sentence within those guidelines is unfair?
So the role of judges “is not simply to hand down a sentence,” yet in your next paragraph you argue that it is unfair to ever hand down a sentence that someone else already hasn’t had – even if its in the guidelines? Again – why have the judges?
Why have the guidelines?
And did you miss my point about the fact that EVERY crime will have ONE person (well, could be a tie) who holds the record for highest sentence? Assuming I believe this still unsupported negative assertion … if we pretend Paris now holds that record … why should it NOT be her?
Let me get this straight now. You think its unfair. But if somewhere in California, ONE person had the same sentence – it suddenly becomes fair? That makes sense?
I have to echo what others said – who cares about other peoples’ punishment? Its either fair or its not. I’m not sure how me spending time on Google to discover that in 1998 a guy named Pedro got the same sentence will suddenly make it any more or less fair.
Simple question: if the sentence is within the statutory guidelines, as established by the legislature – how can it not be fair?
And if that doesn’t make sense to you … now I wonder why we have not only judges, but legislatures? Do the guidelines mean anything at all? The statutes? The judges discretion?
Fess up. You’re either drinking heavily, or you own a Blu-Ray copy of Paris’ infamous tape.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:43 PM
When I was Hilton’s age, I was teaching English as an adjunct lecturer at the University of Louisville. When my wife was her age, she was working full-time at an electronics company and living well on her own.
Hilton has absolutely no life skills and is unable to function outside the realm of celebrity. She is dumb, spoiled, and contributes nothing to the world. This very, very short stay in prison might turn her life around, but she’s surrounded by enablers and sycophants whoring off her notoriety. So I doubt it.
Gottafang on June 8, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Interesting info here. Read the comment. It’s from a defense attorney’s perspective, but it describes the specific crimes, charges, and pleas.
If nothing else, the girl (and her lawyers) is guilty of mind-numbing stupidity.
She pleaded down the drunk driving. License suspended. Then got caught driving. Was informed of the potential consequences. Managed to be too lazy to take some very basic steps to get her license back. And then drove AGAIN a month later, and got caught.
If that kind of open contempt for the terms of a probation agreement don’t deserve jail time, I’m not exactly sure what does.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:48 PM
http://sentencing.typepad.com/sentencing_law_and_policy/2007/05/the_latest_news.html
Trying the link again.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:48 PM
Let me make it really simple. If you can’t produce a single case where people in similar circumstances where treated as she is being treated, then, that is injustice by definition. If you want to make the case she is being treated like everyone else, then, have at it and good luck.
The guidelines I was referring to are the norms for that community. Not the possible legal penalties codified in the law which have never (seemingly) been applied.
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
Take the keys and lock her up !
Lock her up !
Lock her up !
Take teh keys an lock her up !
My fair lady !
moc23 on June 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
TheBigOldDog on June 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
I suggest you take that with a very large grain of salt.
In California it’s called a wet reckless and it is a DUI. Paris has three of them plus a driving on a suspended license and a probation violation. She’s lucky she didn’t get a year.
doriangrey on June 8, 2007 at 5:51 PM
You are the one making the case that she is being singled out for harsh treatment. The burden is on you to prove that this is the harshest sentence for this crime in the state of CA.
JackStraw on June 8, 2007 at 5:52 PM
Are you even vaguely aware that by your logic, the SECOND person sentenced for any crime in history, if the sentence happened to be harsher than the first guy’s, was a victim of “injustice by definition?”
You and logic aren’t close friends, are you? By your reasoning, nobody would ever, ever be able to be sentenced more harshly than anybody else. Is that really what you think?
Let me make it even simpler for you: if the sentence is within statutorily mandated guidelines and is not an abuse of judicial discretion, it is, by definition, the opposite of injustice.
C’mon, man. You’ve got that movie on Blue-Ray AND HD, don’t you?
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:53 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »