Asymmetrical Information

I don't think they did it for Paris.

I think they did it as a humanitarian gesture for those poor criminals.

Does anyone think she should trade places with Scooter Libby?

Why should this turn you into a raging leftist, Jane?

Why should the state pay for her stupidity by locking her up? Why make the taxpayer fund a lesson on why laws should not be broken to a rich nincompoop. Shoundn't she have already learned this already?

Slap an ankle bracelet on her and let the Hiltons keep her under control, and slap a fine on them for the, um.. externalities caused by their offspring. Anything else is just welfare for the wealthy.

She didn't kill anyone. But the downside of this arrangement is that she may forget how to drive drunk after 40 days of home confinement.

Imagine a world without Paris Hilton.

...

Where's a Charles Manson when you really need one?

not left or right, but obviously of POWER, and the power of money. I'm sure that the child of a janitor could get sprung too, if only they could afford the lawyer and the doctor to go in and claim mental breakdown. MEH! What truly irks me is all the paris apologists, incl. her mom and others that think she shouldn't have ever been there. Um, sorry to be so law and order kids, but when you repeatedly break a law, repeatedly act like it shouldn't apply to you? Well? you should have to actualy pay with time. Money is worth nothing to them, but their time is... in terms of left or right, I thought they were of the elite left anyway...

Aren't raging leftists soft on crime? If you want her to serve her sentence, shouldn't you be a raging rightist?

I understand that nonviolent, nonrisk prisoners often get out after about 10% of the sentence. This is due to overcrowding in LA jails.

Paris really has an advantage because she has 24 hour lawyers that know every nuance of law and watch jail procedure. The slightest irregularity and they can run to a judge.

She can also hire doctors to state she is in one difficulty or another. That must be accepted as is or her attorney will get a hearing about how sick she really is.

Almost certainly a hearing will give her the benefit of the doubt. She either goes home or to the hospital. The first is good, the second is more fun than a cell - besides the next ploy might work.

Either way it wastes the resources of the jailers. The jailers gain nothing from holding her. By releasing her they avoid risk and scrutiny.

And the result is that the law just means something different for rich, powerful, connected people.

If I drove drunk, I expect it would stay on my record--unlike the President. If I got sentenced to jail for it, I expect I'd have to serve my sentence--unlike Paris Hilton. Similarly, if I did the things done by HP in their spying scandal, say, I'd be in prison right now. But if you're the CEO of a big company, well, gee, I guess the bad publicity was punishment enough.

This is horribly corrosive, but it also serves the people in the society with the most power, so I expect it will continue.

Keep in mind, too, the reason they cut her sentence in half -- overcrowding in the jail. I imagine that her money buys enough lawyer oversight, to make keeping the lady incarcerated unacceptably expensive for the jail. Too many extra hours with lawyer-this and doctor-that, always special case and media interfering.

Not to mention, the interpersonal skills of a janitor's daughter and Paris Hilton are different. I expect Hilton would be a lot less likely to survive unscathed, due to ignorance of the people (inmates and guards) around her.

So poor people likely have a more fatalistic, 'well, damn' and be more likely to quietly go along with being in prison, while the Hilton's of the world have attorneys that get paid enough to make really big (completely legal) pests of themselves. And the shock and impact of the time she spent will likely be as profound on Hilton as the full 45 days would have been.

Heaven forbid we should check the cash flow to jailers and sheriff.

So poor people likely have a more fatalistic, 'well, damn' and be more likely to quietly go along with being in prison, while the Hilton's of the world have attorneys that get paid enough to make really big (completely legal) pests of themselves.

If I'm poor, I'm thinking that this confirms everything I've ever heard about how there are two tiers of justice in America, one for rich, white people, and one for everyone else.

Who's up for a riot? Random property damage is good for the soul. Of course we'll be caught. But don't worry, I'm rich--my money will get us out.

Perhaps I spoke too soon. Latest word is that the city attorney has filed a motion in Judge Sauer's court requesting that the sheriff be held in contempt and that Paris be hauled back to jail to serve out the remainder of her sentence.

Awesome.

"nonviolent, nonrisk prisoners often get out after about 10% of the sentence"

Not sure if "nonviolent" applies here. Take a look at the quantity of people drunk drivers murder every year; they are violent, dangerous criminals who belong in prison. It's time the courts recognized that.

It will be tough to do more than scold the Sheriff. Even if he violated a court order he will say it was a mistake. And if he didn't it was a judgement call.

Providing they don't find explicit favortism not much will happen.

And what has Paris done to send her back to jail? She was, or acted, ill or depressed. Try proving otherwise. She asked for release and got it. No indication she paid anyone off.

Her attorneys thought this out to the hour before she set foot in jail. And it worked.

As Jane has pointed out here before, most local prisons in the US are lawless places ruled by arbitrary enforcement and prisoner on prisoner abuse. Everybody knows it, but we (US society) choose to do nothing about it. Since prisoners are generally poor and ill-educated, nobody is able to raise a big enough stink to make the courts and society officially take notice.

That's why we have "white-collar" prisons for rich folk. If rich people had to go to the general prisons, they would make a huge publicity stink about conditions there.

I'm sure the LA County Sheriff (who runs the LA prisons) was horrified when the judge ordered that Paris be held in the standard prison system. He doesn't want her lawyers and (worse) publicists exposing the real conditions of the prison system.

So, he had her put in solitary, and I'm sure was very solicitous of her needs. He was ready to give in to the first request to get her out of there.

Thus, we can sweep our underfunded, over-occupied and downright cruel prison system under the rug again; and go back to pretending that everything is OK.

I knew that she wouldn't be in jail for too long because of who she is. The thing that bothers me is that they put her on house arrest as if that would be a sufficient substitute. The b##ch live in an f-ing mansion. Where is the justice!

rich, white people

Yeah, like OJ. And Kobe Bryant. And the Duke players, who got off easy because of their skin...

Immoralist,

There IS a two-tier justice system in this country. If you haven't figured that out yet, you've haven't been paying attention. I figured it out in the '80s and it’s been very obvious since then. Look back then to all the Wall Street insider trading that stole millions. I remember one guy who served 3-years at some club-fed, paid a huge fine and walked out a free man and worth well over $100 Million. Can I trade three years in a min-security facility for $100 Million? But hold up a 7-11 and net $50 and you’re doing hard time.

I was briefed when I was in the Air Force that the regulations and rules, mandatory and enforced by the legal system, where optional for General Officers. I saw that multiple times as senior officers that did crimes (embezzlement, misappropriation of funds, etc), got forced to retire (honorably) while the poor sergeant or captain got to go to Leavenworth and a dishonorable discharge.

The idea is to make it to the level were you are too big to be hammered. That's when you've made it. Yea, I'm in a cynical mood.

I was dismayed by the fact that she was put into a special "celebrity" unit. Things like that shouldn't exist. She should've been in the general population just like anyone else.

"I'm sure the LA County Sheriff (who runs the LA prisons) was horrified when the judge ordered that Paris be held in the standard prison system. He doesn't want her lawyers and (worse) publicists exposing the real conditions of the prison system."

The sheriff runs the jails, not the prisons. Prisons are actually equipped to deal with "special needs" prisoners in ways that jails are not. In all likelihood, he released her specifically to draw attention to the troubles of the jail, not to hide them. He wants more money for more jails.

I find it interesting that it is considered preferable to release someone convicted of a potentially life-threatening crime than to release people convicted of marijuana associated offenses.

Hilton's case is not so outrageous for LA County jails, apparently. (read the comments)

I say, good for her! It is completely asinine that we put people in jail for 45 days for driving a car without a license in the first place. I just don't care whether or not she got out because of who she is, as long as it was a more just outcome.

Should money be able to buy better criminal justice representation?

I don't mind money buying a mansion, a fleet of cars or any material things desired. I don't care that money buys off the need to raise your own children. I can even understand money buying better health care, education and access to free speech. But I have never understood why money should buy anyone more justice (or less). Why should wealth increase a person's chances of escaping justice? Why should poverty leave one more prone to injustice?

The remedies for this situation are not obvious. I would not like to see the current situation replaced with one in which the state supplied all defense attorneys. There would be the possibility of fixed trials (which would be rare), and the appearance of fixed trials (which would be common).

One remedy is to increase the pay for lawyers appointed by the courts. Some states--I don't know about CA--pay absurdly low amounts, like a maximum of $500 for a criminal trial.

The Federal system pays $90/hr, which isn't anywhere near what you can get in private practice, but it isn't bad at all. And Federal Public Defenders are paid about the same as Assistant US Attorneys.

"I say, good for her! It is completely asinine that we put people in jail for 45 days for driving a car without a license in the first place. I just don't care whether or not she got out because of who she is, as long as it was a more just outcome." Posted by Yancey Ward

Yancey,
The penalty was not because of the suspended license. Many people are arrested for driving with a suspended license and recieve little or no punishment. The punishment is based on why their license was suspended. People with licenses suspended because they forgot to fill out a renewal are little danger to the community, and pay a small fine. People who were suspended for serious, dangerous, traffic infractions are punished as if they were engaging in that activity.

Dangerous traffic infractions are not crimes of greed; they are crimes or recklessness. Driving with a suspended license demonstrates that her judgement has not improved since her conviction. She should be punished as if she is engaging in reckless activity that endagers people's lives, health and property. Pursuant to the terms of her probation, that is exactly what happened, until she was released.

njorl,

I know why the license was suspended and don't care, it is still an asinine punishment.

What makes it an asinine punishment?

Keep in mind, she was not sent to jail for driving without a license. She was sentenced to 3 years for reckless driving. That was in a plea bargain in which other charges were dropped. Part of that plea bargain was that she be allowed to go free on probation, provided she obeyed the rules of her probation agreement. She broke those rules quite spectacularly on multiple occasions. The final incident was driving 70 in a 35 zone at night without her lights on and without a valid license. Rather than go through the expense of a trial for another reckless driving charge, they simply revoked her probation for a very mercifully brief period.

You know, if we brought back flogging we wouldn't have problems with early releases. Give her 25 lashes and let her go, end of story.

Njorl,

Fine, sentenced to 3 years for reckless driving is asinine. Satisfied?

"Raging Leftist"

Is there any other kind?

"Fine, sentenced to 3 years for reckless driving is asinine. Satisfied?"

No.

What is asinine about it? It isn't as if she will serve anything close to that time in jail. That is merely the time period that she must obey the probation restrictions.

Fine, sentenced to 3 years for reckless driving is asinine. Satisfied?

Eh? I have no difficulty with a 3 year sentence that is commuted to probation, giving opportunity to the party in question to demonstrate that standards of responsible behavior have been recovered.

But evidently you do. So: what do you think is a reasonable penalty for taking anywhere from 1.8 to 3.6 tons of metal onto a public highway, usually with the capability to reach speeds of at least 75mph, and then behaving irresponsibly to the potential endangerment of others?

"Njorl,
Fine, sentenced to 3 years for reckless driving is asinine. Satisfied?" Yancey Ward-

oh, really. Have you lost anyone to a drunk driver? 3 years was about right, IF she keeps her nose clean. She hasn't. She is very likely to be a repeat offender, because she was reckless again. What are the odds she'll have another DUI? Not only are they high, but with every time she does it, she ups the odds she will have an accident where she will maim, or kill someone.

It doesn't matter how much you punish her then. The damage is not fixable after the fact. The idea here is that you frighten her to the point she changes her ways, but that only works if she actually cares. If she can always get off, then why should she care?
It rings a little hollow in the ear when the person apologizes to a family in court about killing their wife and two children, after their third DUI. They don't get why they don't have a license, they don't get why they've been on probation for years.

They get it when sentanced to life in prison for murder though.
All of which might be avoided if everyone involved were to take responsibility for action, including the perp.

You act like this is a little nothing thing, and perhaps the first time it is... but if you cannot see a change in attitude from there on the perp's part, then stronger measures are needed.

What shouldn't be forgotten is that a person as rich as she could easily be driven everywhere, and then not need to worry about driving. She is making choices for herself, but they effect others...

And what has Paris done to send her back to jail? She was, or acted, ill or depressed. Try proving otherwise. She asked for release and got it...
Depressed? About being in jail? Unpossible.

They get it when sentanced (sic) to life in prison for murder though.

The typical sentence for vehicular murder in California is probation. It's legal to murder your wife and children, if only the perp does it with a car. This isn't just a problem with celebrities. It is a problem with Californians
(Americans in general, even) and cars.

Driving is a necessity of life whether you a capable of doing it safely or not. Therefore we will accept fifty times as much death from avoidable motoring abuses with equanimity as we are willing to accept attempting to pacify an important middle eastern nation before turning out the government.

Paris Hilton is back in jail. Judge Michael T. Sauer for SCOTUS, anybody?

It's a beautiful, beautiful day.

I actually kind of disagree with the judge's sending her back. I know, I know, it makes me feel unclean.

I mean, when the whole, "she can't be in jail for medical reasons" thing happened I felt like, well, it's totally crappy that her family can probably hire a mess of doctors to testify that she has some medical condition which for some reason prevents her going to jail though it's perfectly fine for her to grobetrot or whatever. And it's totally unfair that probably you can buy off enough medical professionals to do that, and there should be some kind of ethics standard for who a court lets submit evidence.

BUT if they do get a mess of doctors (or even say two of them) to do that -- that should end the argument as to whether or not she goes to jail. Even though we're all sure it's bullshit, the judge and/or sheriff shouldn't claim the medical expertise to overrule the doctors (unless the state wants to hire a bunch of their own/get Paris examined/etc which starts to get ridiculous for the violation: just go with the damn GPS thing).

Of course as it turns out it sounds like the whole "medical condition" thing is some goofiness that nobody is willing to document in court, so, that's different. But still I think that if she pays off medical professionals who are willing to go to court for her -- the court should probably defer and let her out.

Sanjay: There's nothing contradictory or unprecedented about lay review of medical experts whose decisions bear on law enforcement. It happens all the time in jury trials. Also, the standard procedure for prosecution for overprescription of medicine is to *first* have a medical board review a doctor's practices, and if it can't reach consensus, then it goes to some non-medical experts to review for merit.

Well as they say, "Only in America!" where plutocracy is and has always been the rule of the land.

Comments are Closed.