Bucking the trend on Paris Hilton
I've discovered I'm in a distinct minority when it comes to Paris Hilton. I just don't like what I see in the larger picture. A lot of people I've spoken to seem all too happy to watch Paris Hilton being jerked to and fro by the various elements of the justice system. I find that attitude odd. What did Paris Hilton ever do to them? I, for one, don't enjoy this at all. Not only do I think we can feel for Paris Hilton, I think the way her case is being handled suggests the machinery of justice is definitely out of kilter.
Paris Hilton does not gain much sympathy for what she's been through. John Turley-Ewart wrote last month, before the most recent events, about the lack of responsibility showed by Paris Hilton:
Hollywood is full of bad role models, but few can match Paris Hilton who emerged as a rich girl gone bad when a secret porn video of her surfaced on the internet. From there she launched a career in television, music and is a constant target of the paparazzi.
She has cultivated her bad girl image by associating with Britney Spears, whose life seems to be in a tailspin, and breaking the law.
In January she was charged with drunk driving and later pleaded no contest to the charge. Her license was suspended and she was put on probation. Drunk driving is not a laughing matter. It is without doubt a reckless activity that shows no regard for the lives of others.
Ms. Hilton might have learned from the incident that she had to take responsibility for her actions, that she can project the image of a bad girl, but she can't behave badly in the real world with impunity.
She did not learn that lesson.
At the time this was written, Paris Hilton was facing 45 days in jail for having been caught driving while under a license suspension, as sentenced by Judge Michael T. Sauer. She spent 5 3 days in jail, had some sort of medical episode, prompting Sheriff Lee Baca to release her to serve out the remainder of her sentence in her home. That new sentence was set for 23 days, on the assumption that she would exhibit good behaviour. City attorney Dan F. Jeffries appealed the sheriff's move. Paris was told she could participate in the new proceedings via phone, but the judge insisted that she come in person and had her brought by police. In court, she was re-sentenced to return to jail for the full 45 days again, and she was led out of the court in tears.
Now I don't for a moment believe that Paris Hilton doesn't deserve some punishment for her behaviour with regards to her driving license. However, I don't believe she deserves judicial punishment for the crime of being perceived to be a callous and shallow celebrity. Paris Hilton is lucky, however, since the punishment for the driving infraction will hopefully be a means of addressing her larger problems related to her alleged self-centeredness.
Notice I say alleged. Truth is, I don't know her, and I don't trust what I read in catty fashion mag columns (not that I spend a great deal of time researching them). Had she lived her life under different circumstances, perhaps her outgoing personality would have found a healthier and more constructive way to express itself. Or maybe not.
But I do know that in the description of the events I just gave, Paris Hilton is more of a spectator. She might have exaggerated her medical condition, but then the sheriff and his staff seemed to use that to overstep their authority, or so say the judge and the prosecutor. But because of the sheriff's actions, Paris Hilton has been through a judicial wringer. Worse, the actions of the government seem confused and capricious.
That bothers me. Between the judge, the city attorney, and the sheriff, Paris Hilton could not be certain that whatever punishment had been set today would still be in force tomorrow. The judicial chaos to which she has been subjected would itself be grounds for an appeal, I would think. The State exercises great power, and we deserve to expect that this power be exercised with some moderate amount of stabillity. Sheriffs, prosecutors, and judges ought to defer to each other on those matters where they have primary responsibility. I have not seen that happening here.
Paris Hilton has said she will not attempt to appeal her current sentence:
Paris Hilton has not eaten or slept since arriving at the medical ward of a Los Angeles jail and is being given psychotropic drugs, celebrity Web site TMZ.com reported on Saturday, citing law enforcement sources.
Nevertheless, the socialite and hotel heiress said late on Saturday afternoon that she had told her attorneys not to appeal the order that sent her back to jail on Friday after a day of house arrest.
"Being in jail is by far the hardest thing I have ever done," Hilton, 26, said in a written statement issued by her attorney, Richard Hutton. "During the past several days, I have had a lot of time to think and I believe that I am learning and growing from this experience."
That's commendable, and I hope she does learn from this. But I wonder too if she is worried that any further legal action will prompt more spins on the Roulette Wheel of Justice, and she might win an even more severe sentence.
That should not be the case. The justice system ought to generate decisions that are predictable, within reason. I don't think Paris Hilton has been treated reasonably.
I hope she learns from this experience and emerges a better person. But if she does, I won't be crediting the judicial machinary of Los Angeles County.
Check out what Canadian bloggers have written about Paris Hilton
Results will open in a new window.
Skew my story on Skewz.com
Rate political news for their bias, read related stories, and leave your own skewed commentary
Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
Paris Hilton Lee Baca Michael T. Sauer Dan F. Jeffries Richard Hutton justice system
Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!
Comments
Im with you, Steve.
While watching some big name lawyer on TV a couple of nights ago, i heard the following:
1) This was not a NORMAL sentence for this type of crime
2) the jail was overcrowded
3) the sherriff has the power to reassign prisoners, and he was upset at the judge for the obviously harsh sentence.
4) The judge wanted to show who was boss.
5) Putting Miss Hilton back in jail was a political move, rather than a matter of law.
6) And last but not least, Judges and sherriffs are elected.
Posted by: Lee at June 10, 2007 11:23 AM
All these adoring masses, who idolize this aging CELEBUTARD, should realize, that is, a Judge takes into account PREVIOUS SCOFFLAW ATTITUDES and ACTS, and considers them into any sentencing equation. Apparently, there were a numbers of previous obligations made, during previous court appearances, which Hilton failed to perform. That is the only good thing about our Justice System. Everything is taken into account.
Posted by: Feldwebel Wolfenstool at June 10, 2007 11:32 AM
Paris' grandfather made a contribution to the sheriff's election campaign. The sheriff returned the debt with his house arrest decision. The judge overruled the sheriff and put her back in jail. The sheriff's actions are under review.
Pure and simple, this is about corruption. Paris got caught in the middle. Poor her.
Story is on today's the Daily Telegraph.
Posted by: at June 10, 2007 11:55 AM
The above comment is mine. How come it was posted without a name and email as required to post? :hug:
Posted by: Louise at June 10, 2007 11:58 AM
No one is required to post with a name or email. I don't want people to feel intimidated when leaving a comment.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 10, 2007 12:00 PM
She spent 3 days in jail, not 5.
Drunk driving is a serious offence, and hopefully she will get help with her alcohol problem before she kills someone.
The girl needs AA...not a fancy dancy rehab...but AA meetings.
Social drinkers do not drive drunk, and put other people's lives in jeopardy.
If she were to drive drunk or high and kill someone close to you, your thoughts on her would change.
Posted by: anonymous at June 10, 2007 12:00 PM
Steve, thanks for the clarification. Until the thought police take over, I will identify myself. :)
Posted by: Louise at June 10, 2007 12:29 PM
I am suprised you missed the "It's not fair" comparison Steve.
Poor little rich girl who thinks that she is above the law gets caught driving while her license is suspended.
Twice.
Leaves the courthouse shouting "It's not right".
Sure sounds familiar to me. Do you think its easy for her to set priorites?
Posted by: David E. at June 10, 2007 12:34 PM
People are relishing her fate because she has been a class A "B-word" since she splashed into headlines 15 minutes of fame ago. She is the anti-thesis of the American Dream, using her power and money to exert influence and fame without ever having worked for it. She is a heiress, but without an modicum of modesty or shame. She is only sobbing because she screwed up like a regular human being but doesn't want to pay for it like a regular human being. Almost anybody else in her position would have been thrown in jail and nobody would have cared. Only her (undeserved) celebrity has gained her sympathizers, those who feel it is unfortunate that people are making fun of her predicament. This, from a woman who epitomizes self-serving, arrogant, careless, and ambivalent. Anyone who truly feels sorry for Hilton should recognize that she is the product of over-indulgence and limitless money, who erroneously believes the laws don't apply to her. She's learning a lesson which only alcohol and drugs will likely fix, as she celebutante's her way back into the winners circle and uses this experience as some kind of reach out of the common person. But only her uncommon selfishness and moral abasement will continue to shine through as she forgets this little unpleasantness and gets back to being the stupid spoiled brat she is.
Posted by: Raphael Alexander at June 10, 2007 12:52 PM
I agree with the comment "not a normal sentence". Oh, do I ever agree!
Driving drunk merits a year in jail! Second offence should get 5 years in jail! And it shouldn't matter who you are. Giving a celebrity an extremely light sentence of probation and license suspension makes no sense. And then giving her ONLY 45 days in jail for getting caught driving... wow!
Drunk drivers are a danger to all the rest of us who use the roads. They kill innocent people every day. If people who drink and drive KNEW they were going to jail for a long time if caught, there would be a lot fewer drunks driving. And more innocent people surviving.
Posted by: Grumpy Old Man at June 10, 2007 01:07 PM
Simply O.J. without a knife.
Money should be able to buy me out of jail.
Posted by: Moebius at June 10, 2007 02:02 PM
Despite what we think the penalty should be , the fact is that in America, the NORMAL sentence is a few hours of community work.
No matter what we think of this spoiled brat, the law should be equal for all citizens, not based on how much press coverage there is.
Posted by: Lee at June 10, 2007 02:09 PM
I know someone who was caught DUI in Toronto about 25 years ago. He apent the night in jail and had his license suspended for a year.
Forty-five days doesn't seem excessive to me. IF the judge gave her this "harsh" sentence because she's Paris Hilton, because he for some reason found her behaviour/lifestyle distasteful, that is not a good thing. The law should be blind.
However, a month and a half in jail doesn't seem overly zealous of the judge, when you think what the outcome of her irresponsibility could have been. She's lucky she's not in the clink for involuntary manslaughter, where she could be sentenced to up to two years.
As I commented on another blog, this might be a defining moment for Paris Hilton. This may be the turning point in her frivolous and rather dissolute life. This prison sentence could turn out to be a gift to her: "O happy fault," as St. Augustine referred to his dissolute life, which caused him to reassess his life and turn toward God. Paris Hilton may not find God in this experience, but she may find some humility and get a dose of reality, both of which seem sadly lacking in her life.
Posted by: 'been around the block at June 10, 2007 04:00 PM
...who's Paris Hilton?
(I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night though...)
;-)
Posted by: tomax7 at June 10, 2007 04:18 PM
The law should be blind. No matter what we think of this spoiled brat, the law should be equal for all citizens.
Ridiculous.
Or rather 'nice' in a can't we all just get along ,kum-bay-yah, campfire sitting around kind of way, but not at all reflective of HOW THIS THING WORKS.
You show up in court dressed as if you couldn't care less about what is going on there after arriving late to the hearing. Pay little or no attention to the proceedings, and blame your ' handlers' for the fact that you are there , and then see how fast your position goes from bad to very much worse. You show up without high-priced legal mercenaries(as MOST people have to do,by the way), and see how well you do during the process. Money talks and always has.
JUSTICE is NEVER BLIND in the REAL WORLD as opposed to wish-fulfillment, THEORETICAL WORLD. Never has been; is not now; and will not be so in the future. That is why the high-priced defense attorneys spend days advising their clients on how EXACTLY to appear and to behave when they arrive in court.
Paris , dear sweet Mother Theresa type that she is, demonstrated through her behaviours, attitudes, and comments, that she considered the whole process 'boring' and a waste of her time. Why should I be here was the implicit comment she made to the court. The laws don't apply to ME.
Well, the Court made a rebuttal. Frankly, I find it hard to worry about her 'problems'.
She is exactly where she should be.
Period.
Posted by: dougf at June 10, 2007 04:37 PM
The judge was appointed by Ronald Reagan, not elected.
Posted by: at June 10, 2007 05:39 PM
The sentence was based not on the original charge, which would have earned her only a few days in jail. It was based on the fact that after being suspended she then went out, not just once, but twice, and was caught drinking and driving. The first time she was stopped after the suspension, she was warned that the next time would mean jail, and she went right out and did it again. The judge is being harsh on her because she is not, as some of the news outlets seem to indicate, a first-time offender, she is actually a third-time offender, and she has shown absolutely no remorse.
As a sidebar, why would she not have hired a driver after the first episode ? She can certainly afford it, and I can't imagine that driving in LA is particularly enjoyable.
Posted by: jenna at June 10, 2007 06:25 PM
CELEBUTARD ... SCOFFLAW ... Poor little rich girl ... O.J. without a knife ...
Did any of you know that once upon a time, back in the days before we lived in a police state, that jail was reserved almost exclusively for those people who actually harmed someone, and not for people who merely were thought to have potentially endangered someone, or who broke administrative rules? Back then people understood the very simple concept of justice, that a punishment must fit the crime - that is, the harm done to the perpetrator as punishment must be somewhere in the same ballpark as the harm committed by the perpetrator.
An excellent example of how the lumps can be manipulated into not just wanting, not just demanding, but *screaming* for someone to be crushed by the state. The state grows, personal freedom shrinks, and the idiots who will suffer in the end were actually made to beg for it.
Posted by: at June 10, 2007 08:29 PM
People who obsess about a non-entity and oxygen thief like Paris Hilton are retarded. Look in the mirror folks... and do try to get a life.
Posted by: Caveman at June 10, 2007 09:13 PM
Ah, "oxygen thief". Thank you. Knew she must've done something really despicable to have so many people demanding that she be crushed by the state. Or apathetic to her being crushed.
Posted by: at June 10, 2007 09:19 PM
"Crushed by the state"... She's a repeat drunk driver, chump. Can the stupid "revolutionary" talk - you sound about as retarded as she is. I didn't know leftards cared about a class enemy. Repeat drunk drivers belong in jail. Next... *yawn*
Posted by: at June 10, 2007 09:34 PM
Did any of you sob-sisters in Hilton's corner catch the special that Nancy Grace televised concerning her, before Hilton was sentenced?
You know, the one where every 30 seconds they flashed up still pics of innocents killed by drunk drivers. They were all ages, too: elderly, middle aged, twenty-somethings, teens... hey! Even a toddler or two.
Dead. Every one of them.
Go download footage of that sometime (there's probably a torrent or two for it, somewhere) and give it a watch, and then c'mon back and shill a bit more for Miss "Billionaire Heiress Don't Pick on Poor Me".
This moron should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law; she got off once due to her celebrity, and basically p*ssed on the privilege by driving drunk AGAIN, only a short while after the original time in court. Anybody caring that little about the possibility of killing innocents while DUI deserves a bit of think-time courtesy of the state. And for somebody as wealthy as her to drive impaired yet AGAIN, while having enough pocket change to have her stupid self limousined 'round the town with no incipient risk to others... anybody that stupid shouldn't really be driving.
mhb23re
at gmail d0t calm
Posted by: mhb at June 10, 2007 10:12 PM
She broke the law by driving druck and showed a lack of respect by continuing to drive after the fact after repeated being told she did had a suspended licence. She was sentanced to a significant sentance to ensure she learned a lesson when it comes to respecting the laws of the land.
After surrendering and serving part of her sentance, the sheriff decided to release her from custody and require her to serve out the remainder of her sentance under house arrest, which is his perrogative to do. The judge/DA disagreed and calle dan emergency hearing for the next morning. The sheriff's dep't refused to come pick her up and told her to testify by phone which pi$$ed the judge off even further. How in the world is this her fault. If she argued witht he sheriff's dep't and drove herself into court she would have broken the rules of her house arrest and been sentanced to further time? Because the judge was upset over the sheriff's dep't decision (which was their realm of responsibility to do) he created a situation where the defendant was put in limbo and placed under undue strain (whatever you feel about her and her lifestyle aside, she was not being treated fairly which we are ALL entitled to)
Posted by: at June 10, 2007 10:39 PM
"The girl needs AA..."
You can't make anyone attend AA. They have to want to be there, otherwise it's just a waste of everybody's time.
BTW, I'm with the voices that say drunk drivers deserve jail time (called "Corrections" in Canada)
Posted by: The Bank Dick at June 11, 2007 03:14 AM
Typical Tories. Propping up the elite.
Posted by: at June 11, 2007 06:34 AM
This is depressing, lmao.
I believe we all have the right to expect equality under the law.
We cannot have the law being administered based on the amount of press coverage being spent on the case, or the ethnicty of the criminal.
I wish all of you who cant see this point would be equally as outraged when our justice system here in Canada lets a murderer out on the street after one day in jail.
I couldnt care less how many days in jail Miss Hilton spends. What i care about is the reasons for the actions of the judge and sherriff.
Posted by: Lee at June 11, 2007 07:17 AM
I know people caught drunk driving 4 times and they never had to spend one night in jail. So If she is getting tougher treatment than them?
My wife worked with one sot, who killed his best friend while drunk driving, started with a 6 month sentence then down to 1.
I think it just shows how vacuous people are that they care. They are the same brain dead types who read the super market tabloids.
How many of those tabloid readers even know who Hugh Newsom, and Channon Christian are?
Victims in one of north americas worst hate crimes of late that missed the news because "Paris" is more important.
Give me a break,
Posted by: DrWright at June 11, 2007 10:53 AM
Glad everyone is missing the point. It's not that her sentence was fair or not. It's that being jerked around by a justice system that seems unable to coordinate itself is a major problem. In other words, the LA County justice system is seriously undermining its own authority to mete out punishments. To exercise the sort of life-changing power that the justice system wields demands a measure of consistency and wisdom, neither of which is apparent in this fiasco. As such, Paris Hilton could argue that her punishment was brought down by an organization that is not suited to the task, and so the sentence ought to be revoked. Paris Hilton is in jail now, and is likely to stay there for some time to come. It is the LA County authorities that, so far, are getting off easy.
Posted by: Steve Janke at June 11, 2007 11:32 AM
Steve, I think I know what you're getting at. A pretty good argument could be made that releasing her from jail and then suddenly dragging her back again could be construed as "cruel and unusual punishment". Certainly the original sentence was far stiffer than average -even for a repeat scofflaw.
Personally though, I think she is reaping what she herself has help sow. "Wisdom and consistency" ? Not today thanks. We want entertainment instead. As Ann Coulter once wrote: "It's Jerry Springer's world, we just live in it."
I can't work up any sympathy for one of the ringmasters who got caught up in the circus she helped create. I'm more concerned about the few remaining good people out there who worry about things like that little shooting war we're involved in over in the middle east right now. And who worry about horrific crimes like the one DrWright mentioned (BTW, that's Christopher Newsom, Doc), or any other REAL issue that's plaguing us today. Like it or not -we're all stuck in Jerry Springer land.
Posted by: up north at June 11, 2007 12:14 PM
She was released then dragged back to jail because the Sherrif is corrupt. He has a long history of covering up for and helping out the rich and famous. Mel Gibson is the name that comes to mind but there were others. He also has a long history of taking "gifts". In fact he took more gifts than all the 57 other sherriffs added together.
Paris' grandpa gave him a huge donation when it was time for re-election and the release was payback. The judge decided he wasn't gonna tolerate that sort of crap. If she would have quietly served her sentence instead of trying to have her family buy her way out of jail she wouldn't have been "jerked around". You are correct about the sherriff though, he should face some sort of penaulty for his behavior in this, and other matters.
Posted by: Phil at June 11, 2007 06:31 PM
We're all tired of the media circus surrounding this situation. A normal individual would find that in and of itself more than sufficient punishment. Suspect even the jail time won't divert Paris from proceeding down the road she's chosen. If only her parents were doing time as well.
Posted by: iowavette at June 12, 2007 01:43 PM
 
|
|
