Furthermore, whoever reduced her sentence after she was originally sentenced and before she entered jail, the judge had plenty of time to object to it. I knew about the reduction, why didn’t he?
That’s not my argument at all. DUI is a serious offense and should be punished accordingly. Check my post again:
My point is that Paris is being made an example of to show that the system works; real facts say otherwise.
From a purely legal standpoint, I don’t believe she was ever actually charged with DUI; her offense was reckless driving. The fact remains that the judge in this case is being unnecessarily dickish because a) she’s Paris Hilton, and b) the sheriff, whatever his motivation, saw fit to change the conditions of her arrest, thereby undercutting what the judge perceives as his absolute authority.
I ask you, who’s acting like a spoiled child now?
And if your folks hired a good lawyer who got you a reduced sentence, you would have refused and insisted on serving the harshest sentence possible?
I call bullshit.
You inadvertently make a good point, though. How many of the “screw Paris” crowd are truly worthy of casting stones in her direction?
Which reduction? The “45 days to 23 days” for “good behavior” or the “substituting 40 days house arrest for 23 days in jail”? The latter wasn’t announced until Thursday morning and the City Attorney didn’t file a motion protesting it until that afternoon (I doubt the judge could do anything on his own motion). The judge explicitly denied her house arrest in his original sentence. The sheriff acted unlawfully in releasing her. Her sentence hasn’t been increased at all. Forty-five days (23 with good behavior) and no house arrest was what she had got in the first.
I’m not being snarky, but read my post.
The judge’s original sentence was 45 days. Well before Paris entered jail, someone reduced it to 23 days. I don’t know who did this but it was a well-known fact *well before * she went to jail. I, and no one else, heard any objections from the judge about the reduction.
After she went to jail, shenanigans ensued.
While I think she is a spoiled, self-centered wanch (southern for wench) Paris has done nothing wrong, from a legal standpoint since.
The *sheriff * let her out of jail and into electronically monitored, house arrest for the rest of those 23 days, in direct contravention of the judge’s written sentence guidelines. Like someone somewhere said, she didn’t escape through a tunnel she dug, she didn’t shank a guard and go over the wall.
So, why is the judge now punishing her by reinstating the 45-day sentence for (a) entering jail with a 23-day sentence over her head, and (b) leaving jail and going under house arrest after “five” days, when the *gaolkeeper * turned the key and let her out?
Two points:
-
My understanding of “good behavior” doesn’t mean simply that you refrain from shanking someone in the shower. It means you cooperate in all ways with your confinement and cause no inconvenience for the system. The rules can be Byzantine for this, and you can violate them without meaning to. Constant crying and refusing to eat could easily count as not being good behavior.
-
Paris specifically said that she hoped she would be an example for girls everywhere, right? Unintentionally, I think she’s providing the best possible example for children in certain circumstances, i.e., children who are highly charismatic and emotional experts and who are rarely told “no” by adults. I really hope those kids are watching this case with a sense of horror, thinking, “Holy crap, it doesn’t always work!” If some kids can avoid becoming Paris by watching her implosion, that’s a good thing.
Daniel
She’s still eligible for release after 23 days if she behaves well. Reinstating her additional sentence isn’t punishing her more. Paris is not being punished for leaving jail early. She’s being punished for violating her probation.
I’ve said here and elsewhere I think she should do her time.
However, when she entered jail, her sentence was 23 days in jail (not under house arrest, etc.), and now that she’s back in jail, that’s what she should serve.
If there was anything wrong with or any such “good behavior” conditions attached to the reduction from 45 days to 23 days, why haven’t they been mentioned anywhere? No one said, "We will reduce your sentence to 23 days only if, when you enter jail to serve it, you don’t cause problems (which I do think she caused).
The good behaviour clause applied to serving the sentence she entered jail to serve – 23 days.
Her full sentence, when she entered jail was 23 days; if there is some good behavior reduction to be applied at any time it would be based on 23 days.
She could not have gotten a sentence reduction from 45 days to 23 days based on good behavior in jail, because she was not in jail when the reduction took place.
Therefore, because she violated the good behavior clause in jail, she *should * serve the 23 days sentence she was subject to when she entered jail. The judge’s re-upping it to 45 days is grandstanding, pandering to the public and possibly illegal.
You’re confusing me. That doesn’t agree with the tenor of a previous post where you argue that nothing is served by keeping her in jail.
She pleaded not guilty to reckless driving in the initial court appearance. The charge was reduced to some kind of alcohol-impaired reckless driving charge.
You don’t know that.
The sheriff is. Unless you think he actually does have the authority to commute or alter sentences?
If the standard response to a sentence is 50% off for time served, the judge has no responsibility whatsoever to reinstate the reduced sentence, does he? He should reiterate his official sentence, which is subject to the 50% time off for good behavior clause, and that’s that. If he upholds the sheriff’s 23-day sentence, the sheriff reduces it to 12.
Cut her some slack. I’m sure it was a simple case of her mood elevators wearing off.
- On Sunday PH was fine and dandy
- During her prison stay she begins crying and complaining that the cell is cold
- Suddenly a serious medical issue becomes apparent
- For some reason, she had not revealed this issue prior to entering prison
- For some reason, the prison cannot deal with this issue
This screams of opiate withdrawl. Of course she wouldn’t tell people about this problem upfront. I beleive prisons are limited in the quantity of Methadone they are allowed to administer. (Just enough to live, but not enough to feel good about it.)
Of course not. I would have been as self-absorbed and whiny a bitch as Parisite, begging and crying and freaked out. That doesn’t mean I should have gotten easier treatment. The grown-up me is a very different person from the younger me (though many would say I’m still a bitch). And anyway, my parents wouldn’t have hired a good lawyer who would get me a reduced sentence. They would have made me suck it up and pay the price for my stupidity. They let my brother sit in county jail for a month for possesion of a hit of LSD and a half-lid of pot (and he was VERY lucky to only have to serve that much time). I knew the score.
It wasn’t “inadvertent” at all. I said it specifically to show that I’ve done stupid shit that could have gotten me thrown in jail too. Way more than Paris even (I dealt drugs in school and yes, I was an idiot). I’ll cast all the stones I want to.
She was driving after drinking. She got probation and her license suspended. She got caught driving AGAIN, and was given a warning that she signed. She got caught driving AGAIN, AND never attended the classes she was ordered to attend.
45 days is not enough, but good enough, and I do hope she serves every bit of it. Fuck her.
For future reference if I’m ever Pitted I should probably clarify that I only dealt mescaline, and then only for about two weeks before I got scared and stopped. It was a dumb dumb dumb thing to do. I still took it (loved it!) but quit selling it. And that was 25 years ago.
Have you ever seen her so-called “reality” show, “The Simple Life”? (If not, I don’t recommend it. It lowers your IQ about 10 points every minute.) Her incompetence is astounding; I doubt that she could figure out how to tie her own shoes, let alone pick up trash or use actual, you know, water, and whatever that sudsy stuff is that makes bubbles.
I am wondering if Paris is suffering from not only a herpes outbreak but withdrawl from the stuff she must do on a regular basis. Coke would be my first guess.
I know nothing about hard core ( or soft core stuff), so I leave the discussion of withdrawl to more worldly dopers.
Well, let’s see. I’ve never clowned around in front of a video camera singing “I’m a jappy Jew!” and “I’m a little black whore!” to the tune of “We Are Family” and laughing like it’s supreme wit. I’ve never pissed on the floor of a club because I didn’t want to wait in line for the powder room. I don’t flash my snatch every time I get out of a car.
Yeah, yeah, I know: None of those things are crimes, and they’re not what she was sent to jail for. Still, they don’t make me particularly sympathetic when Miss Thing finally doesn’t get her way.
Isn’t most of the crap on The Simple Life staged anyway? Has Paris ever even had to actually learn to do anything herself (other than eating, drinking, dressing, etc)?
This is incorrect. Her full sentence was 45 days. The sherriff’s office announced that she’d serve 23 of those days. cite.
That said, you may be right that the “good behavior” clause applied only to behavior before the sentence was served; I can’t find anything explicitly clear on this matter. In any case, it appears that the shortened sentence was an executive, not judicial, decision.
Daniel
This is correct, Left Hand; the wording in the cite you included does say:
“May 16: Sheriff‘s officials say Hilton will serve 23 days in a special unit away from the general population[,]”
but it doesn’t say (a) who made the decision to reduce it to 23 days; nor does it say (b) why, between May 16 and June 3, the judge had no objection to Paris or anyone else thinking this was her sentence.
We’re both in agreement that *she should serve the full extent * of whatever official sentence was effect when she entered jail, good behavior notwithstanding. I’m only arguing this because I believe what’s fair for one is fair for all, uselessness to society also notwithstanding.
I will search for cite that explicitly says whoever it was that made that decision to reduce the sentence.
You realize, of course, that much, if not most, of that show was scripted/staged. Whatever you might think of Paris Hilton, assuming she’s incompetent because of what you saw on that show is roughly the same as thinking Tom Hanks was actually stranded on a desert island for four years.
Hilton is a spoiled little rich girl to be sure, and likely has some substance abuse issues given recent events. But she’s not retarded, and the one thing she IS quite clever at is manipulating the media and press to make money off her own image; I mean, how the hell else can you explain her fame? You can be very sure that “The Simple Life” was scripted and edited down to the last detail.