After further review, I think that Paris is being treated too harshly at this point. I consider a sentence of 23 to 45 days for violating a DUI probation as way too lenient; I think the DUI itself should’ve pulled something significant like 12 to 24 months.
That said – I don’t understand why she was dragged back to court in chains, or why the judge threw her back in prison without a good-behavior reduction. She was released prematurely due to the sheriff’s actions; she shouldn’t be reamed for that. IMnshO, the judge should have reiterated his statement that the sentence was 23 to 45 days in prison, without an option for house arrest, and then should have chewed out the sheriff’s office for violating that.
Which still would have wound up with Paris being hauled back to jail.
Ah, well. Can we please stop giving this publicity addict her drug of choice?
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.
Why is everyone quibbling about the number of days she should spend in county jail for charges having to do with driving? The real break PH is being given is everyone looking the other way regarding her drug use. She was photographed smoking a joint after her sentencing. Did the cops check her purse any of the times she was pulled over? If she was held accountable for whatever kind of drugs she has on her and in her at any given time, she’d just have to hope they only found a misdemeanor amount.
She wasn’t given the good-behavior credit before serving her time; that was kind of misleading. As I understand it, the sentence was always 45 days, and 23 was the number of days she would end up serving provided she kept her nose clean. The judge didn’t actually reduce her sentence, so he hasn’t hiked it back up either. I haven’t seen any indication that she is not still eligible for the good behavior time.
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.