I’m not sure I’d make that assumption. It may have been some real specialty stuff. We just don’t know.
If that were the case, you’d think when asked, prison officials would’ve mentioned that Spector needed care that couldn’t be received in prison. They’ve said nothing of the sort, only reiterated that he could have this special privilege because he’s got the cash to pay for it.
Maybe you’re right. I’d like to believe you’re right. I just can’t when Paris Hilton gets let out of jail after serving a fraction of her sentence on a charge that you or I would get nailed to the wall on, and Chris Brown doesn’t get prosecuted for beating the shit out of a woman despite a goddamned mountain of evidence.
Seriously, I just don’t take the California justice system seriously when celebrities are involved.
I got it way before you did. I just haven’t told anyone yet.
I got it 
Well, thing is, average people get cut a break all the time. It just doesn’t make the news. I’ve been let off by the cops with a warning at least as often as a ticket. I assume as a white guy I get a bit more slack than a black guy, plus I’m mild mannered and polite and unthreatening, and so on. So I’ve got that going for me. But I sure ain’t a buxom blonde, or any kind of celebrity.
I guess I’m trying to say that your sample size is too small to draw the correlation you draw. How many times have you committed a serious crime and got nailed to the wall, and how many times have you committed a serious crime and got preferential treatment? Now become a celebrity, and see if you get different results.
“We’ve replaced Phil Spector’s celebrity with Folger’s Crystals. Let’s see if he notices.”
As I stated upthread, I find it at least a trace objectionable that he has access to that cash.
Now that part I have trouble with. Speaking as a prison doc, anyway. What if the private dentist decides the patient needs oxycontin 4 x a day for his tooth pain, for the rest of his life? (Yes, I’ve seen those sorts of orders written by easily manipulated physicians).
I understand California has no money and far, far more inmates than they can care for, but it sets a bad precedent.
Define “access”. If you go to prison the state doesn’t confiscate all your wealth, but neither do you get stacks of hundred dollar bills to play with in your cell.
If you had no ability to “access” your money while in prison, does that mean your mortgage couldn’t be paid? Or that you couldn’t pay taxes? Or pay your lawyer? Or that you couldn’t pay any other debts?
Even though Phil Spector might have $1,000,000 in a bank account somewhere, it doesn’t do him much good in prison, because he is a ward of the state. It turns out that letting him pay for his own dental care saves the California taxpayers from having to pay for it. Horrors!
“Access”, as in him being able to control it on a day-to-day basis. I don’t claim to know all the details of such a process, but there is this concept of the court giving an about-to-be-incarcerated person an opportunity to “get his affairs in order”. I presume that would cover the handling of any pre-existing obligations.
And the creation of new obligations, such as, for instance, a dentist bill, can just wait until the inmate is no longer incarcerated.
I’ve never understood why “Is it safe?” is such a great cinematic line.
And … is what safe?
I’m not getting the outrage either. What, did “THEY LET ROMAN POLANSKI OUT ON BAIL TO GO TO A SWISS CHALET!!!” seem kind of overkill? We have had a lot of Polanski threads of late.
Do the prison officials even know the details of his medical needs? Are they free to discuss them with the press?
After thinking about it, I just don’t care. It was the dentist, not Dairy Queen. Probably saved the state thousands of dollars.
I’ve used the services of three dentists during the past 30 years.
Before getting in the chair for the first time for each one, I’ve informed them, ‘Before we start, I’m telling you straight that it’s safe’. My current dentist, who really knows the drill, replied, ‘I don’t care. I’m going to do it anyway’.
Arf arf.
What the hell is a “hard target search,” anyway?
The cynic in me says it’s just following a very old precedent, not setting a new one. From the case of Foxy Brown, to the case of Tuvia Stern for some modern ones. Or if you want to go old school, Napoleon III. All got better treatment than the average prisoner. I’m not sure this is something we’ll ever be able to get away from. Money talks.
In fact, there seems to be a cottage industry in helping rich people adjust to prison life including teaching them how to handle inmates and game the system to get all the privileges they can. I wonder if they teach them how to make a shiv?
Enjoy,
Steven
A soft target is someone who is assumed to be unarmed and undefended; a parent who has abducted a child without the use of or history toward violence is considered to be a soft target, and therefore unarmed or less than lethal methods should be employed in apprehending the target unless otherwise indicated. A hard target is a perpetrator who is expected to be armed or otherwise pose a threat to seeking officers or the public at large. Maurice Clemmons, the suspected gunman who killed four peace officers in a coffeehouse in a Seattle suburb and took one of the officer’s weapons would be a definite hard target, i.e. a history of convictions for violent and atavistic felonies and should be assumed to pose an immediate danger to pursuing officers and the public. In such cases, the use of lethal methods in apprehending the suspect should he attempt to flee or resist are approved, as a failure to secure the perpetrator represent an hazard to the public at large.
I’m not really certain why Dr. Richard Kimball, who presumably had no prior history of atavistic violence, would be assumed to be a hard target, but it makes for a nice turn of speech. In fact, I’m not clear why Dr. Kimball would have ever been convicted of a capital crime, insofar as there was a mountain of reasonable doubt any competent criminal defense attorney could have used to at least knock the sentence down to voluntary manslaughter. It doesn’t seem as if anyone was persuaded as to the virtue of the theory except for the police and the jurists.
Stranger
It’s not that it’s a great line. It’s an utterly mundane question, but quoted in the right context it conjures up a great scene. It’s a scene of torture, without gore, playing on a commonplace fear. Hoffman, directed by John Schlesinger, completely sells the pain, fear, and helplessness (while his character maintains a wiseass attitude as best he can), while Olivier’s cool, detached repetition of three simple words drives home the banality of evil. And of course there’s that horrible sound.
A stash of smuggled diamonds.
The precendent on on rich=special treatment was set a hell of a long time ago. The precendent that famous=special treament was set a hell of a long time ago.
In California? Rich and famous?
-Joe