Sorry, I don’t understand your argument. Are you saying that there should be some sort of wealth cut-off wherein people over a certain income are not allowed home arrest, but people under a certain income are? Who decides the cut-off point? Did the judge have an objectively-determined wealth cut-off point when he made the stipulation? Or are you arguing that such things should just be decided on a whim? Sorry, but there’s no rhyme or reason to what you’re saying.
Besides which, it’s immaterial. The comparison is not to other people who got home arrest, it’s to other people who got released outright, got a shorter sentence, or didn’t even serve time in the first place. You’re bitching that she got moved to home arrest when most people wouldn’t even have gotten that much punishment. Your comparison is a strawman.
All of you keep ignoring the fact that for Paris to even GET a 45-day sentence was unusual. Expert opinion:
So what is this, like the 4th or 5th time that someone has claimed that I am “riled up in her defense” or similar? I don’t get what’s so hard to understand about this. I never said I feel one way or the other about Paris Hilton going to jail. For the umpteenth time, ALL I’M SAYING is that you all are wrong in your assertion that she got treated better than the average person.
O.K., let’s all say it together: PARIS DID NOT GET TREATED BETTER THAN THE AVERAGE PERSON. Expert lawyers are all over the television attesting to this.
No offense, but I don’t think the experts care what your personal opinion is, or whether it “makes sense” to you personally, in determining whether or not a given legal action is unprecedented.
Better than what? Nobody else in similar circumstances gets stipulations in their sentences that say they can’t have home arrest. Most don’t even GET jail time. “Better” implies a comparison. If I dump a bucket of piss over your head, but then offer to clean it up, did I treat you “better” than someone who didn’t get piss dumped on him at all? You’re making an unqualified comparison here.
I rest my case.
Yeah, I’m really getting that you “don’t care” about Paris. :rolleyes: Your seething hatred is obvious.
You’ve been around the boards for some time… surely you’ve seen similar examples of Doper wit? People profess hate, love, annoyance, ire, rancor, and lust in very OTT ways. I don’t think people act on these hyperbolic statements.
Furthermore, you have to admit that it would be a fairly amazing set of circumstances that would arise where DG actually found himself near a burning Paris Hilton wrapped in plastic. And I’d hope he would say, “Fuck it, I’ll put her out.”
Would you not agree, though, that most schmoes who get sent to the clink don’t have their own cell? Never mind why she has it. But she doesn’t have to worry about Betty McShivpants getting close.
Look, we know the reason she got her private cell is because other inmates would go apeshit. Even if she asked to be put in gen pop they’d have said no, most likely.
Bottom line is she got a private cell, which is a step up from what most people get. And if you’re an ordinary person, if you get a private cell, you probably got it because you’re sick as hell, or so frail you’d collapse if someone leaned on you. PH is one of the few people who gets that “advantage” - because regardless of how it came to be, it’s definitely better than being in with the hoi polloi - and isn’t suffering an impairment because of it. Therefore, the rationale goes, she should have been able to hack it. Just like nobody got too worked up when Martha Stewart ended up in a country club prison. I don’t think people care that the rich and famous get privileges when they’re incarcerated - jail is jail and prison is prison, no matter how much nicer it is compared to the city lockup. I think they care when they don’t have to serve their sentence like others do.
The problematic part of your sentence is “like others do”. What part of my post quoting an experienced lawyer saying, “Nobody gets 45 days in jail for driving under a suspended license after a DUI probation” didn’t you understand?
Did it ever occur to you that judges often mete punishment out for the behavior of defendants? She got the DUI, was assigned a class and had the license suspended. She didn’t take the class, or even try to. Apparently one has to register with the program, which is the most preliminary step, and she didn’t even do that. She was stopped twice after this for violating probation EVEN THOUGH EVERYONE IN THE FREE WORLD (well, LA, I imagine) knew she couldn’t drive (and cameras tend to follow her around). She has access to any number of alternatives to driving herself, unlike your average person, who might not be able to afford a cab ride or a chauffeur every time they need something. Then her mom laughs in court and asks for the prosecutor’s autograph. Then she’s late for her court appearance…
I think there is compelling evidence that she did not take any of this seriously at all, and judging from her mom’s behavior, there wasn’t a great deal of respect and support for the legal system at home either. (Before you say, “Why is she being punished for what her mom did?” I can assure you that if my ass was on the line, I’d either make sure that Mom got her shit together or didn’t come at all.) The judge appears to be responding to this. There seems to be a good deal of discussion around her sentence from lawyers here , and I walk away thinking that one cannot simply look at the infraction without looking at the surrounding issues - like her attitude and disposition. I would feel the same way if two kids get busted for the same crime, but one shows (or fakes) contrition, and the other acts like it’s no big deal. It’s not simply “45 day sentence for violating probation on a DUI,” it’s “45 days because you didn’t do a single thing to show this judge that you are taking this seriously and will change your behavior in the future.” The spin doctoring she’s doing now should have been done in court when she was there the first time.
If you want to discuss this rationally, you might want to ratchet it down a bit. I haven’t been in the middle of your other more contentious discussions with others in the thread, Pit be damned.
So, what? Your argument is that even though, according to legal experts who are aware of the details of the case, she actually got a stricter sentence than usual under the same circumstances, you think those experts are wrong, and it’s actually better treatment because she’s rich and could have a chaffeur if she wants, and because she had a bad attitude? This sounds more like an emotional reaction to how you feel about Paris than any kind of cogent argument as to what sentences people normally get. All I’m hearing here is, “She’s rich and snotty and therefore she deserved more jail time than anyone else.” Well, you’re entitled to your opinion, but it doesn’t prove she got special treatment.
Again, I’m not defending any of Paris’ actions, or saying I agree with anything she has done. I’m only saying that the punishment she got was not lighter than what the average Joe would get, all considered.
That’s just a vague link to an entire blog page. I posted a specific quote and explained how it made my point. What am I supposed to do with this vague link of yours?
So you believe this expert, who was specifically commenting on the Paris Hilton case, deliberately and disingenously used a faulty analogy. Sorry, I don’t understand where you’re getting that from.
(Or could it be that you’re just trying to nitpick whatever bullshit you can think of?)
I swear this is my last response. I asked you a question and then responded to you ONCE in this entire thread. Are you confusing me with someone else?
Damn. Now who’s building strawmen?
You are not even close. She got precisely what one would get for behaving as if this infraction was no big deal - the wrath of the judge. I explained to you why that happened. Now, if she went to court and behaved with some level of contrition, which most people, I would imagine, do - no cites here - and got the book thrown at her I would see your point. Honestly, in the middle of the paragraph above you lost me, so just so you are clear: I honestly don’t give a fuck about PH one way or the other. I get no jollies seeing her go to jail, nor do I get angry if she gets out early. However I understand why many people have a problem with her situation, given the fact that she had the absolute lightest version of the sentence possible (essentially 3 days counted as 5). The judge sniffed shenanigans when the sheriff, who received contributions from the Hilton family in a reelection campaign, released her because of a health problem - allegedly. PH didn’t help matters by planning to throw a party right after her release, either. You can certainly state that this has no relevance, but if you already knew the entire world was watching your every move, why would you do these things? I think most of us would try to keep a low profile.
I’m trying to help you see what the judge is responding to. I certainly think PH is rich and snotty, but I never said that she deserved more jail time than anyone else. I believe she earned more jail time by doing all the things I posted and pissing off the judge. That’s how our system works, and everyone knows it.
If you read the comments below the blog you will see many posts by lawyers arguing that the punishment and sentence was harsh, and many saying that in actuality, PH’s sentence was very light considering the two (or three?) probation violations, the contemptuous actions of Mom Hilton, etc. I don’t think there is a consensus that she got a harsh sentence among lawyers, in other words.
Maybe we’re talking past each other or something, because my original point to you was that like it or not, whether she chose it or not, PH did indeed get a break or two (mostly the private cell). She can’t help that. But she sure could help being on time, doing whatever she could to appear contrite in front of the judge, and preparing herself to serve some time.
What? No, I’m not confusing you with someone else. First you wanted me to concede that she got a private cell without regard to the reason why. What’s the point of that? It’s like you don’t care about discussing the truth of the matter and just want to score imagined “points” in a debate or something. I know she got a private cell, but you don’t have any evidence that they gave it to her as a favor, and it seems much more likely that they did it for pragmatic reasons. Yet you still wanted to argue the point, and for what? You were trying to get me to concede that it’s better for her, even if that’s not the reason. This is being disingenuous. We’re arguing about whether she got special treatment, not whether something done for pragmatic reasons coincidentally results in a situation that you think is favorable to her. So sorry if I got a little ticked off, but disingenuous arguments get on my nerves, I guess.
No, I think I’m right on. I understand that the judge was full of wrath. How is that relevant? If anything, it supports my point. The judge got mad, and gave her a stricter sentence than people normally get. Hmmm…wasn’t that my point all along?
O.K., and I characterized your argument as “it’s actually better treatment because she’s rich and could have a chaffeur if she wants, and because she had a bad attitude”. That still sounds like what you’re saying. I mean, tell me how your argument differs from my characterization of it.
Where did I lose you? Would you like me to explain something I wrote?
O.K., so you are not reacting emotionally to the situation. But then why do you keep insisting that 5 days was too light of a punishment, when I have posted expert opinions that say that is a NORMAL punishment, and is NOT lighter than usual? And someone posted way back in the thread that they used the correct method of counting the days, so why are we back on this “it was only three days counted as five” thing?
I’m not saying you’re wrong, but I haven’t read anything to suggest that the judge accused the sheriff of accepting a bribe. The judge definitely wanted the sheriff to follow his stipulation, and ordered that it be done. But do you have a source for this “sniffed shenanigans” assertion, or was that just a guess on your part?
Well it isn’t relevant, so why did you write it? Is it illegal to have a party? Was she ordered to sit on the edge of her bed crying for 45 days? By the way, was it really a party? I read that she ordered some cupcakes to be delivered and handed out to the media outside the house.
But how is this relevant? Have I ever defended any of Paris’ actions? This is what I mean by trying to force me into a strawman position. Paris has done a lot of things I wouldn’t do. What’s that got to do with the price of tea in China?
I mean, isn’t it a GIVEN that Paris didn’t do everything correctly? Would we even be having this conversation if she hadn’t done anything wrong? I think what you’re failing to grasp is that the experts KNOW what Paris did, and what they’re saying is that EVEN IF THEY DID WHAT PARIS DID, most people wouldn’t get a 45 day jail sentence. So to keep coming back and saying, “but she did X, Y, and Z” is irrelevant to the point being made.
And if the judge gave her a harsher sentence because she ordered some fucking cupcakes while under home arrest, then he’s a fucking idiot. I don’t think he did - I don’t think that had anything to do with it at all.
I don’t understand how all this is supposed to support the contention that Paris was treated better than the average person. Maybe you’d like to explain that.
Which comments? Which lawyers? What are their qualifications? And let’s please keep on topic. We’re not discussing whether she “got a harsh sentence”. We’re discussing whether serving 5 days of a 45-day jail sentence for driving on a suspended license constitutes better than normal treatment. That’s the issue here - did she get special, better-than-normal treatment. If you want to start a thread called “Does Paris deserve to be in jail?”, go ahead and do so, but that’s a different topic.
Unless you provide evidence to the contrary, it seems more likely that she got the private cell for pragmatic reasons, not for reasons of favoritism. So whatever point you’re trying to make doesn’t make any sense.
good grief. there is a difference between “Paris Hilton was treated differently (than other defendants in similar circumstances) 'cause she was ‘Paris Hilton’, a celebrity” and “Paris Hilton was treated differently (than other defendants in similar circumstances) 'cause she did specific things to warrent such treatment”
the first is inappropriate and was, from what I gathered from your postings in this thread, your stance; the second is entirely appropriate and is, from what I’ve gathered from this thread Hippy Hollows’ and my position.
now, if at this late date, you’re claiming, as you seem to be doing here, that Paris’ different than other defendants treatment was different because she personally did things to deserve such differences (vs 'cause of who she is), than what the fuck have you been arguing about?
It is normal and expected that a judge would (oh, let’s struggle to find the appropriate word) um judge a person more harshly because certain circumstances (generally considered to be enhancing factors) such as prior record, current demonstrated attitude ( to pick an esoteric example or three of such - like some one who violated their probation immediately after being sentenced, or some one who’s probation was for a driving related crime and they violated it by, um, ** driving** w/o permission, or some one who shows up late for their sentencing).
But don’t you see wring? The judge is punishing Paris for who she is. Who she is is a person that scoffs at the law and thinks herself above it. So much so that she doesn’t have to listen to anybody who tells her she as to attend classes or not drive-- even if the person telling her what to do is a judge. That’s who she is and she’s being punished harshly for it. So harshly, in fact, that she is being FORCED to serve a sentence that she was given and that are entirely within sentencing guidelines.
If Paris wasn’t the person she is this wouldn’t have happened to her.
I posted a specific quote and explained how it made my point. What am I supposed to do with this vague link of yours?