[QUOTE=Left Hand of Dorkness]
This link looks relevant to the question of how “good-time” credit is applied in California:
Admittedly this may not be the right passage, but it looks to me as though prisoners earn credit on a day-by-day basis, and that they expected her to behave through the whole sentence.
If that’s right, now, I’m not sure how the judge could rescind the credit granted her already, or how he could pre-emptively keep her from earning credit. Are we certain that’s what he did?
I’m wondering whether part of the problem is htat the story is being reported by celebrity hound reporters who don’t understand the finer points of the law, and are therefore misreporting the case.
Daniel
[/QUOTE]
Sorry to put Paris Hilton back on the front page, but I promised Daniel I’d do some research and report back.
It appears (I saw nothing definitive) that Paris’ sentence reduction was an executive decision made by Bacca before Paris entered jail. It also appears that he made that announcement, at least in part, because of existing and continuing overcrowding in the jail.
You were correct that officially Paris’ sentence when she entered jail was 45 days with a pre-set reduction due to overcrowding to 23 days. Any amount of this time was subject to good behavior, to which she definitely did not adhere.
My only continuing issue (and I will ruminate on my own after this) is that overcrowding is a real issue in Los Angeles County. The judge’s re-setting Paris’ sentence to a *definite * 45 days, when other County prisoners are eligible for early release due to overcrowding, not good behavior reductions, is of concern to me.
Somewhere between serving the full sentence due to bad behavior (no points) and eligibility for early release due to overcrowding (based on the rules) is where I think Paris’ plight should fall.
I’m not sure, either, how the judge could rescind the credit granted her already, or how he could pre-emptively keep her from earning credit, or if that’s what he did.
That is all.