The single cell is a benefit for her, natch, but in this case it is for the jail’s protection. They are responsible for her well being while she’s there, and if cellmate goes nuts on her, the jail would be out millions. And my guess is that cell only has one bunk.
Right - how dare I say such a thing after biggirl’s completely above-board comment that I was the screaming man on the video she linked to. :rolleyes:
Really? Does the jail get sued every time a prisoner gets shanked? Qadgop!!
I don’t know what’s “fair”, but it would be more accurate to say she got treated pretty much the way most people get treated under the same circumstances, according to every non-anecdotal source I’ve heard.
I think it’s more likely that nobody would have cared one way or another were it not for the the retarded pack of jackals that pass for the media in this country. Since it was all over the news that “OH MY GOD!!! - Paris got out of jail”, it was suddenly time for everyone to play CYA. So the judge thinks, “I’m gonna make a name for myself as the law & order judge who sent Paris back to jail.” He knew if he didn’t, the mob would tear his carcass apart and feast on his entrails.
Do you have any evidence that such a thing happened?
First, I didn’t say her treatment was “harsh”; I said it was harsher than average. You might not think this is an important distinction, but it is, for the following reason: If Person A only serves 10 percent of his sentence, you can’t accurately say that he got “better treatment” unless you know what percentage of the sentence everyone else served. If it’s NORMAL for people to serve 10 percent of their sentence, then you can’t say a person who served 10 percent of his sentence got “better” treatment. So this doesn’t mean that nobody ever served a full sentence, nor does it mean that serving a whole sentence is necessarily “harsh”.
So I don’t “feel” one way or another about her “harsh” treatment. I have consistently taken a position against those who feel that she was the recipient of favoritism to the point that there was a gross miscarriage of justice, and against those who would indict the entire U.S. justice system based on this case, as Apos does on the first page of this thread:
That’s all I’m saying. IMO it’s rather melodramatic to cite Paris’ case as indicative of a horrible failure of the justice system based on mere assumptions that she got favorable treatment, without any normalizing data on which to base this conclusion that her treatment was better than normal. If you want to read more into what I’m saying, go ahead - but you’ll be arguing against yourself.
You know what’s really sad? Paris apparently issued a statement that people should stop obsessing about her and pay attention to truly important issues. When Paris Hilton is the voice of reason, you know something is pretty fucked up.
The description on TV of her cell (I don’t remember which news show, sorry) said it contained only two bunks, a sink, and a toilet.
And isn’t the jail responsible for the wellbeing of all of the inmates? By that argument, shouldn’t all of them be in solitary? And my original question still stands: is she the only celebrity or wealthy inmate? If she shared a cell with some other woman of privilege, who’s to say that Paris is the one most at risk of being whopped on? She just might be the one to go nuts and beat up her cellmate.
I doubt it’s the lead story on every network’s 5:00 news when Joe crack-dealer stabs Fred car-thief. You can bet the folks running the jail are gonna play CYA just like everyone else. They’re not stupid - they know they’re gonna be in deep shit if something happens to Paris.
I’m not attracted to her at all. But I do think there are a lot of women out there who are obsessed with their weight (and the fashion industry’s ridiculous concept of what an attractive woman is sure as hell doesn’t help), and I think it’s quite natural that they would be jealous of someone who is thinner than them and gets more attention than them.
No doubt. I just wanted to know if they would necessarily be liable for civil damages in the millions. Is it common for prisoners who are the victims of violence to win lawsuits against the jail?
Paris go nuts? What makes you think that could ever happen? After all, she’s been the very model of maturity and sanity during this whole thing. 
Sorry, I meant to add that while I’m not attracted to her, there are obviously people who think she’s attractive.
I don’t know. That’s a good question.
ONly ones I’m aware of, it was the jailers who committed the violence, but yes, in those cases there were substantial awards given. Potentially they’d be under bigger risk if it were reasonable to assume that violence may be an issue, as it would in this case (remember Dahmer was killed in prison by some one who, IIRC, wanted the cell cred as ‘the guy who offed Dahmer’ - don’t believe his family sued, however, and they’d probably have lost since it was Dahmer himself who requested general population).
Most people get a 45 day sentence reduced to a 23 day one, then get to come home after 3 (aka 5) days? I think there’s some doubt about that, esp. when the home is a mansion and the judge expressly forbade her to go home. I bet, if that were me and I were specifically forbidden to go home, then I would have stayed in jail for 23 days. I can’t afford that kind of emergency bail-out.
Well, that is the 100% truth right there.
This is one version of events. Yet another has some Hilton-funded shenanigans pulled to get her out early and a judge who doesn’t want his justice completely undermined by rich assholes. You have no more evidence for your assumptions than anyone else has. Both are possible theories for why it went that way. Personally, I’m less inclined to give the Hiltons the benefit of the doubt on this, but I have no proof either way.
Do you have any evidence the judge is grandstanding with his treatment of Hilton? Or is that just your opinion
And she’s more obnoxious and recalcitrant and has pulled more dramatics and bullshit than average. I’ll bet, though I can’t prove it, that that’s what the judge though.
I wouldn’t overindulge in hyperbole about the American justice system based on this event. I’d say it was fucked way before this and for a lot more significant reasons than this. Do I think fuckery took place to get her released to home? Yes. Can I prove it? No. Do I need to in order to hold my opinion that she deserved to be sent back to jail for some more time? Nope. You can lambaste me about that if you want, doesn’t change my opinion one jot, nor does it change that probably most casual observers probably feel the same way.
Ha. She loved the attention until now though, didn’t she? I wonder if her behavior will change after this. Probably not.
Do you have evidence to the contrary? Because as I said, the article I read in the L.A. Times said it is not unusual at all for people to serve only 10% of their sentence. Your doubt seems to be based only on your own incredulity, not any tangible reason.
Again, the specific issue I’m addressing is whether Paris was treated better than the average person, and you haven’t shown that to be the case. There’s also a side issue of this odd stipulation made by the judge. And again, the judge’s actions would appear to be rather unprecedented according to the article. The sheriff contended that the judge did not have the authority to tell him where and when to release prisoners, and that would seem to be backed up by expert opinion. But the sheriff did relent, and that’s where we are now.
You’re conflating the two issues of (1) whether Paris got treated better, and (2) the power struggle between the judge and the sheriff. (And you also seem to have created a strawman position wherein you imagine that I am protesting Paris’ incarceration, which I never did.) I don’t think you have any evidence to support (1), and (2) doesn’t have any bearing on (1). It’s not unusual for people to get out of jail early, so by being released to home arrest, Paris wasn’t treated better than other people who were released outright. If anything, that’s worse treatment.
That’s the problem. People seem to be basing their opinions on “bets”, hunches, guesses, and the like. Unless you have some actual data or at least an expert opinion, your guess as to how you would be treated isn’t valid.
Here’s an illustration of the general lack of depth in analyzing the situation: I don’t know what I was thinking, but I watched part of the evening news on television. They sent a reporter down to the jail, who interviewed people who had just been released. They asked a woman whether she had served her whole sentence, and the woman said that she had. And then they just left it at that. They didn’t ask the woman what crime she had committed, so there was no basis on which to compare her situation with Paris’. And they didn’t do any kind of checking to see if the woman was even telling the truth. So here they left the viewing audience with the impression that Paris got special treatment, without even the most cursory investigation into the actual facts of the matter.
The problem with that theory is, if the Hiltons have so much clout that they can get Paris moved to home arrest, why did she even have to spend the 3 days in jail?
The difference being that I did not start this argument by making the positive assertion that Paris was the recipient of favoritism, and that the justice system is going to hell in a handbasket because of it.
Why? What is your evidence that they engaged in bribery?
Well I never said she didn’t deserve to be sent back to jail, and you can do a search on that if you don’t believe me. So I think you are imagining a position that I never took.
And you know that old saying about our justice system, right? It’s the worst system there is…except all the others. Personally, I’m not going to shed a tear just because someone doesn’t rot in prison for years for the crime of driving on a suspended license and failure to kiss the judge’s ass. I don’t think people should get off scot-free for that, but I’m saving my outrage for somewhat bigger things than that.
She didn’t say she despised the attention, she said the public’s attention ought to be on important things, meaning her predicament is not that important in the grand scheme of things. But such is the general hatred of her and what she represents that you can’t even take one single thing she says at face value.
P.S. - I mean, she’s still a bimbo and everything. Just wanted to be clear on that.
I don’t have time to read all of this thread, but I just wanted to say, it’s comments like the one that I quote here that I really don’t understand. Yes, she’s rich, petty, useless and not too smart, but is that really a reason to hate her with such venom? I find such comments sociopathic, and to see someone agreeing with this very comments just a few posts later is bizarre.
I’m going to hazard a guess that DudleyGarrett was engaging in a little hyperbole… weren’t you, DudleyGarrett?
Hell, it made me laugh.
I think the idea is that “sent home” on “house arrest” is not the same for Hilton as it would be for a regular person who would be stuck at home for 23 days. It’s considerably better-- she lives in a mansion with servants. It’s not the same thing. I’m guessing that’s why the judge ordered she not be sent home-- because being home for her is already so much better than it is for most other people, it’s favoritism if she gets to spend her sentence there, even if a regular person would get the “same” treatment." It ain’t the same, in a very quantifiable way.
The funny thing is, I don’t care if you don’t feel satisfied. I do. I can’t be arsed to get as riled up as you have in her defense. I’m glad she’s back in jail because she’s pulled a lot of shit already and deserves some consequences for it. Beyond that, whatever.
I don’t think the judge’s actions are odd at all. They make total sense to me.
Huh? I’m not conflating anything. I think Paris got treated better BECAUSE the sheriff let her out in defiance of the judge’s express wishes. Where’s the conflation here?
I know you can read, so I know you read where I explicitly stated that I had no proof and likely no one would have any. I still think it happened. There’s certainly ample evidence of previous ties between the sheriff and the Hiltons to suggest that we can connect the dots, unless we are being deliberately obtuse in defense of a rather idiotic point.
I dunno, you seem a bit heated about poor Paris. Outraged, even. I’m not. I’m kinda glad she’s back in jail, but I don’t care that much either way.
She’s an attention whore. Sometimes, you get the bad kind of attention. It’s the nature of the beast. Yeah, no one should be paying any attention to her, but when we’re forced to because it’s saturated every media outlet, including NPR, tough shit, honey-- people are going to know what you’re doing and have an opinion. Don’t like it? Maintain a lower profile, make less money off the sight of your face. Or suck it up.
Does it matter? Maybe it made some people laugh. It just made me sick.
Really? Maybe you should get out more.