Paris goes free! WTF?!

The BBQ Pit
61

[QUOTE=DeadlyAccurate]
Why in the world didn’t she hired a full-time staff of chauffeurs after the first DUI (or before, for that matter?) She could have a car and driver on standby for any minute of the day she decided to go out, and she never would have had this problem.
[/QUOTE]

Yeah, one of the negatives about where I live is you can’t go to a bar without driving there. And if you drive to a bar you can’t get too drunk or you can’t legally drive home. There’s been a few times in my life where I’ve had too much fun while out and had to take a room at a hotel for the evening.

I know if I had the resources I’d have a driver on staff for just that kind of situation. Being able to go out to a bar and not have to worry about how you’re going to get home if you decide to throw back a few too many would be pretty great.

62

[QUOTE=Apos]
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it was my understanding that for these sorts of offenses, they DO stack up in terms of severity. Your second DUI is not just a DUI, punished with the same sentence as every other DUI. It’s an escalation of the problem, with a harsher sentence. Likewise repeat probation offenses.

This is why I’m a little confused when people talk about comparing her case to other cases: which ones do they mean? Do they mean similar single violations of probation? Or do they mean a violation that comes on top of escalating driving offenses?

In any case, if I turned my nose up at the food in prison, I have a very, very, very, very hard time believing that I would be sent home with a note for my parents and an ankle bracelet.
[/QUOTE]

I have a hard time understanding the law on DUI. My aforementioned cousin had (I believe the number is precisely 12) arrests and convictions for DUI. He never received any jail time aside from spending a few hours in jail on a few occasions when they processed him and before his wife came to get him out.

Is the reason he never got any harsh penalty (aside from eventually a lifetime ban on driving) because his offenses were spread out over roughly twenty years?

I don’t know. I know a guy who had to spend six months in jail on his first DUI. He was driving home after drinking at a party and swerved to avoid a car that ran a red light, when he swerved, he crashed into another car and injured the driver. The driver of the car who ran the red light was never caught or tracked down. They actually did a blood test on him and he was precisely AT the legal limit, and because someone was injured in the accident it was I suppose it added to his legal problems and eventually he had to serve six months in jail.

I don’t necessarily think he should have gotten off with a ticket, but considering I know several people who have 2-3 DUIs and have never spent an hour in jail, it just seems that sentencing for these types of offenses is incredibly variable.

63

[QUOTE=Cheesesteak]
Indeed, being held in solitary confinement for a DUI is clearly what I think of as preferential.

With people like this, well known, controversial and an easy target, the prison system isn’t really set up to deal with them in a decent manner. Put her in the general population, and she’ll get beaten, put her in solitary and she’s getting some of the harshest punishment we have, for a misdemeanor.
[/QUOTE]

Ah, so now rich people require special prisons in which we hire special pretend prisoners to care for them and give them social outlets and treat them nicely. It never ends…

But of course, ordinary non-celebrities get beaten all the time too. Maybe it would be nice if prisons didn’t tacitly endorse beatings, rape, and so on in the first place.

64

She wasn’t let out in 3 days because there weren’t enough resources in the jail, she was let out for “medical” reasons which means “too big of a spoiled bitch to take it, so she gets her doctors and shrink to get her out early because she can afford such professional treatment.” Let’s not mistake this. They said that’s why she was let out. It wasn’t anything about resources.

65

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I have a hard time understanding the law on DUI.
[/QUOTE]

Part of the reason I think is that the law on this varies not only state by state, but sometimes even by municipality. And then, on top of that, there does seem to be a very wide leeway in officer discretion and sentencing.

66

Her IMDB page is all a-twitter with activity. Recent thread comments:

Valid statements, all of them.

67

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
She wasn’t let out in 3 days because there weren’t enough resources in the jail, she was let out for “medical” reasons which means “too big of a spoiled bitch to take it, so she gets her doctors and shrink to get her out early because she can afford such professional treatment.” Let’s not mistake this. They said that’s why she was let out. It wasn’t anything about resources.
[/QUOTE]

They cited medical reasons “among other things” I believe, so for all we know, that could be an uncited reason. Not that I think it is, but I certainly could see them being irritated with having to deal with this princess and her special needs and solitary (which is extra effort on their part for the duration of the sentence) and then look for an easy way out.

68

[QUOTE=Astroboy14]
Huzzah! Paris is free!! Er, well, sort of… she does have to stay home for the next 40 days.
[/QUOTE]

they outfitted her with a tether, didn’t they? In that case “house arrest” really will mean “you can stay in these 3 rooms in your house”. Tethers are set to distances, not to size of domicile. I’ve had clients who could sit out on their porch on tether, others who couldn’t go to basement. One used to be able to wash half her car - she’d back in the next day and wash the other half.

69

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I think it’s a bit ridiculous that once you actually sentence someone to forty days in prison to let them out after three. However, I’m still not convinced we really needed Paris Hilton in jail over what she had done.

She had a DUI and subsequent probation, then she violated said probation. I’m just not sold that warrants 40 days in jail under our current legal system.
[/QUOTE]
Seriously, I think our penal system needs some new punishments besides sending people to jail. Maybe bring back the stocks? A trousers-down public paddling? Being made to sing the “I’m Very Sorry” song on national TV?

70

[QUOTE=Thudlow Boink]
Seriously, I think our penal system needs some new punishments besides sending people to jail. Maybe bring back the stocks? A trousers-down public paddling? Being made to sing the “I’m Very Sorry” song on national TV?
[/QUOTE]

I actually think corporal punishment is entirely valid for many situations.

It used to be in England there was basically two types of punishment. You could be flogged or locked in the stocks, or you were executed.

There was no elaborate system of imprisoning people, the only people who needed to be locked up on a local level were people awaiting trial, execution, or their punishment. Usually trials were not long nor were the holding periods. The monarch might have a few political prisoners locked away somewhere, but local constables didn’t have to worry too much about housing prisoners, they got worked through relatively quickly.

Now, I certainly don’t want to see such a draconian system put into effect (I oppose the death penalty in any case), but I do think corporal punishment could be instituted in an effective, relatively humane manner.

I think for many criminals, prison is not really any sort of deterrence. Once someone has been “institutionalized” they may not like prison, but they won’t really know how to exist in society and thus will eventually reach a natural state where they pretty much know they are going to be going in and out of prison.

I think a flogging could be extremely useful especially for offenses like a DUI. Flog someone in a manner that will not leave them permanently injured, in public, it will inflict pain and shame and the shame may even be the most significant part of the punishment for many people. Things like domestic violence and DUI are often committed by middle class “respectable” people, who would be deeply shamed over being publicly flogged in front of friends and colleagues.

Plus, in the case of people who are wrongly convicted, wounds heal, but if you spend years in prison for a crime you didn’t commit, you never get those years back, no matter how much money you may win in a lawsuit against the State.

71

[QUOTE=Merkwurdigliebe]
Way to go Justice System. Nice to know a spoiled bitch gets treated differently only because she’s not used to it. I don’t have much more to say than this. Here’s the story..

So she’s getting on house arrest. What a fucking joke
[/QUOTE]
What’s the point of having money if it doesn’t buy you anything?

72

[QUOTE=Martin Hyde]
I have a hard time understanding the law on DUI. My aforementioned cousin had (I believe the number is precisely 12) arrests and convictions for DUI. He never received any jail time aside from spending a few hours in jail on a few occasions when they processed him and before his wife came to get him out.

Is the reason he never got any harsh penalty (aside from eventually a lifetime ban on driving) because his offenses were spread out over roughly twenty years?
[/QUOTE]

On top of what Apos said, DUI laws have gotten harsher in recent years. Did your cousin do his drinking and driving at a time when it was taken less seriously?

73

[QUOTE=Giraffe]
This pisses me off. Not because of Paris Hilton per se, who I really couldn’t give less of a shit about, but just because it illustrates how fundamentally flawed our justice system is. Time and time again we watch rich people given lighter sentences in nicer prisons than poor people, to the point that it seems normal. Poor guy caught with a couple ounces of pot? Off to jail for months or years. Rich guy caught with a medicine cabinet full of Oxycontin? Probation and rehab. Poor guy violates his probation twice? He’s going to jail for the full 45 days, even if he cries and doesn’t like the food. Rich brat does the same? Jail for three days. Three frickin’ days! It’s ridiculous.
[/QUOTE]

cough OJ Simpson cough

Enjoy,
Steven

74

I guess I misunderstood the concept of a suspended sentence. I always thought if you got a 3-year suspended sentence that any subsequent crime during that period (including parole violation) would result in you serving the time.

Why even bother to give a 3-year suspended sentence if the punishment for violating the terms is 3-1/4 days? Aren’t we off by a factor of 300 either in the original sentence or in the time served?

75

Does Paris now have a criminal record? Will it be difficult for her to travel to other countries?

Count me among the people who does not know why she doesn’t just have a driver on 24 hour standby. She can afford it and it would be cheaper than the attorney fees.

76

[QUOTE=Apos]
Correct me if I’m wrong here, but it was my understanding that for these sorts of offenses, they DO stack up in terms of severity. Your second DUI is not just a DUI, punished with the same sentence as every other DUI. It’s an escalation of the problem, with a harsher sentence. Likewise repeat probation offenses.

This is why I’m a little confused when people talk about comparing her case to other cases: which ones do they mean? Do they mean similar single violations of probation? Or do they mean a violation that comes on top of escalating driving offenses?

In any case, if I turned my nose up at the food in prison, I have a very, very, very, very hard time believing that I would be sent home with a note for my parents and an ankle bracelet.
[/QUOTE]

Actually, according to http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19091578/ her DUI was reduced to reckless driving.

I misspoke, she should have gone to jail in Jan. then Feb. never would have happend.

“Medical problems” my ass. She missed a prime PR moment by pulling that card.

77

Yes, she has a criminal record.

wrt to “suspended sentence” and “probation violation”. a jail term can be suspended pending successful completion of probation. Violating probation does not always mean that the probation is now ‘unsuccessfully completed’, from what I’ve seen here, she’ll still be on probation for the duration of the original probation sentence (unless, of course, there are further violations). Lots of my folks were taken back to court on probation violation hearings and would get a variety of ocnsequences, still needing to complete probation. if it happens often enough or the violation is serious enough, the probatino can be terminated and the person can then be resentenced on the original charge.

a client of mine was on 5 years probation, multiple violations of it, multiple little stints in jail, finally 4 months before probation was to end, he did something serious enough that they terminated his probation and resentenced him on the original crime (note, by that time, he’d already served on probation nearly the entire amount of time he could be sentenced for the original crime - so after 4 years, 8 months on probation, he was sentenced to 3 - 5 years in prison. )

78

[QUOTE=AngryIrishLass]
The fact of the matter is she was not arrested for the 2 DUIs (didn’t know she had 2). She was arrested for violating probation. Should they have tossed her in the first time she was caught violating her probation instead of making her sign a probation violation ticket? Yeppers. Is that her fault? Or the cop who lacked the cajones to arrest her? Or was it the cop knowing full well that the result of him actually arresting her in Feb. (and of course every other similar offender) would result in the same thing happening?

It’s indicative of the law and the court’s enforcement and the ability of the jail system to keep up. She, and every other similar offender, should have served the full 90 days for probation violation, but society is reduced to picking and chosing which crimes actually get punished. Misdemeanors, not so high on the list.
[/QUOTE]

That’s all true, but before we get too outraged about this, I will point out that what she did originally wasn’t even a crime before 1990. The BAC limit used to be 1.0, and was rather arbitrarily raised.

79

[QUOTE=Apos]
Ah, so now rich people require special prisons in which we hire special pretend prisoners to care for them and give them social outlets and treat them nicely. It never ends…
[/QUOTE]
Now you’ve got the idea. Special prisons = preferential treatment. Solitary confinement != preferential treatment

80

[QUOTE=lowbrass]
That’s all true, but before we get too outraged about this, I will point out that what she did originally wasn’t even a crime before 1990. The BAC limit used to be 1.0, and was rather arbitrarily raised.
[/QUOTE]

It’s probably not a popular stance but I personally think 1.0 is a more reasonable BAC limit.

To be honest, I’m not sure I’m in favor of a strict BAC limit although I can understand the usefulness of it. Prior to BAC becoming such a big deal, cops used to rely almost exclusively on the field sobriety test, and to be honest if you can’t pass that, you should be in some legal trouble.

However I know many people who can pass a field sobriety test with a BAC higher than 0.8. I know I can, for example.