This article in Salon goes on at length about what a raw deal poor, light fingered Winona Ryder is getting from the abusive Los Angeles prosecutors office.
What prompts an article like this? Ryder attempted to steal several thousand dollars worth of high end clothing and got caught and has treated the charges with disdain, even mocking the seriousness of the charges by wearing “Free Winona” T-shirts to press conferences, which I would imagine has royally pissed off the prosecutors office. The whole tone of the article is that they are making a big deal out of an insignificant crime where the victims are big corporations who can afford it. This is normally the sort of moral rationale you hear the less bright shop lifters give after they get caught and it’s pretty surprising to hear it from a Slate magazine senior editor Dahlia Lithwick.
What’s usually the back story on something like this. Does Dahlia Lithwick owe someone a favor?
I dunno – it does seem significant that other people who did similar crimes are not facing 3 year sentences. I don’t have a problem with her getting her comeuppance if she did the crime but if other people are getting off, why shouldn’t Ryder?
That’s not what I got. I got more of “Why oh why did you have to single out poor old Winona? It’s because she’s a woman, isn’t it?? Or maybe because she’s famous, or something? It’s certainly not because she committed a crime”
Still, I understand now how Elvis could shoot his television.
As to what prompts an article like that: they’re called publicists and they get a ton of money from celebrities to get these kind of articles written.
I’ve handled hundreds of prosecutions on shoplifting charges in my career, and I’ll just throw my thoughts out there:
Winona is guilty. She left the store with a ton of unpaid merchandise and a security guard saw her clipping tags. Seems pretty good to me.
Winona is “overcharged.” Charging Burglary in a shoplifting case is generally reserved for people with a bunch of priors and trips to the penitentiary in their history. Not for some first-timer.
A vast majority of these cases plead. The problem in this case is that BOTH sides are being idiots. The prosecutors should treat the case like any other and let her plead to a misdemeanor conviction with probation, and the defense should quit trying to pollute the jury pool and admit she’s guilty. If they keep saying that she’s completely innocent (and it is possible I guess) then the trial should show that, but they shouldn’t expect the State to cut her a deal if she insists on going to trial.
There is NO way she is going to prison. Maybe if, during trial, she grabs a clerk’s scissors and stabs the judge in the head, but short of that, she won’t spend a night in prison for this.
Basically, both sides are being puds in this case. The prosecutors should treat the case like any other case, and they appear not to be doing that, which pisses me off. But the defense needs to fess up and quit playing the PR game too.
And Winona needs to stop over at my house so I can explain this to her in person.
The prosecutors are charging her with having in her possession two generic pain killer pills, when her prescription only allowed her the official expensive name brand. Technically she is probably guilty, but this is the most asinine overcharging stupid prosecutorial abuse I have seen all week. And it is still only Monday.
Were I on the jury, I would vote to exonerate her of this charge regardless of the evidence, as the charge is more bullshit.
