Equal justice for all my ass.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070607/D8PK1H2O2.html

Yean...undisclosed. BOUGHT!

/yawn

Who cares?

Al Sharpton cares.

http://www.drudgereport.com/flash5.htm

I'd like to violate my probation, get a 40 day jail sentence knocked down to 20 days, then get sent home (because I got sick) and sentenced to house arrest...where I have all the comforts my parents multi-million dollar fortune at hand with the minor inconvenience of not being able to leave the house...and justice for all.

On second thought, it's almost better to have the bitch serving her time at home then to force the tax payers of California to pay for her jail time. The public has wasted enough money on her already.



Like we all didn't smell this coming a mile away...

_________________

This is the part where I would remind Al that O.J. Simpson is still walking the streets at night, but he doesn't visit these boards (unless he is using the name DoctorX, of course). :p

If you want to know the actual story, or what it's likely to be...(it's still "undisclosed" tho)

She apparently refused to eat most foods. In five days this caused serious concern, because she's pretty much underweight to begin with. At this point the jail has 4 options:

1) hospitalize in jail (which means Twin Towers, afaik they're still the only jail locally with in-house medical facilities akin to a hospital.

2) Provide her with 'special' foods so she'll eat (they can't do this, it would generate a MASSIVE lawsuit). You must meet a prisoner's medical and 'spiritual' diet needs (no pork for some religiously, etc) but "I don't like it/can't eat it" isn't a medical issue, like say diabetes would be

3) Force feed her (which needs a court order)

4) Release or switch to home arrest.


Given that those are really the only 4 options, especially since she is not 'refusing' to eat in protest, but claims she can't eat the food (disgusting, I ate all I could, thanks etc) number 4 is really the only reasonable option. Had her sentence been longer, they would have gone with #1 or #3.

As I've said many many many times, I'm a very picky eater. It's not my choice, if it were, I'd be a much more diverse eater. As it is, when I've been hospitalized they've had to make serious concessions to my diet because I don't eat enough. It's not because the food is 'bad', actually my hospital has decent food. It's just there are few things I *can* eat which make the menu. Fortunately for me, the diet for heart patients tends to work because it's so bland. Usually just like some type of plain meat (no sause), a bread, and a veggie. THAT I can eat. Though when I was a teen I was hospitalized for pneumonia and went underweight because I couldn't eat the food, and the doctor had my dad bringing me McDonalds just to get food into me. I think that probably remains the only moment in history that a doctor ever recommended a patient eat McDonalds. LOL

Anyhoo...that's just realistically where it is. I despise Paris Hilton (like most people), and I agree it's hardly just when someone can get mitigation they really wanted by their own actions. It's just unfortunate that whether real or feigned, it was the most 'just' solution under the circumstances.

Though I'd have loved to see her force fed.

_________________

Like we didn't expect this. Though, heaven forgive me...I agree with Sharpton.

(And I don't think it wasn't 20 days. I think it's been more like 5 days...although I don't know exact number.)

_________________

I'll tell you the real reason:

Yeah, I totally expected this and that's why it was so funny and sad when I read the article this morning. The video was even better.

Okay, you believe it's money. So, I'd love to hear the basis for that reasoning.

Or is it just because she's rich, infamous, and white...therefore it MUST be money?

PS: Despite Rev. Al's assertations, I'm personally aware of more than a few instances where prisoners were released, transfered to home arrest, or OR'd on more serious charges/sentences due to various health concerns. My husband had one arrest (on a serious charge), who faked a heart condition, had to be taken from the local jail where he was housed, transfered (by the police, with police escort) to a private hospital locally...treated on the state's dime...and then my spouse had him transfered to Twin Towers so if he pulled that shit again he'd have in house hospitalization. Anyway, I'd hate to tally up the additional costs the state had to pay just for that one prisoner pulling "my heart...oh my chest!", but it wasn't insubstantial. I should also add that he lost all command of the English language, so a translator had to be provided at all times (due to health!) which pushes up that tally. Bleh.

The court OR'd him the next court business day (that Monday). His health considerations were the primary reason, despite the fact that he had committed multiple serious felonies, and was a flight risk due to the fact that he was going to have his citizenship revoked and deported upon conviction.

California's prison and jail system (and probably other states as well) are notorious for releasing prisoners due to health reasons. It's actually been a contentious issue, as the claim has been previously that we're abusing the poor by kicking them out of jail, where they're entitled to free medical treatment, out on the street...where they are not entitled to free services. We (as in the People of California) have even commuted life sentences on "compassionate release" which means a patient is extremely sick, likely terminal, and g'luck we're not paying anymore.

Not that people don't die in jail and prison, but it's cost effective to kick them out if one can do so without compromising society's safety. The instance I outlined did not place the public at risk by his release. (And he was convicted and deported.)

_________________

Source?

The millennium of peace and the uplift of the nations of the world for justice and equal liberty to all the people of the world (Unknown Binding) Printed by M.A. Cordray (1917)

Here's an Amazon link but I think the author is dead.

http://www.amazon.com/millennium-uplift ... 233&sr=8-8

I asked for the basis of your reasoning that money is behind Paris Hilton being released early. It's okay that you have none, but that it just sounds cool to bitch about because she's rich, white and highly dislikable, and of course money must be behind it.

By the by, the basis for most of what we learn comes from other sources. The fact that you're aware she's released at all you didn't learn first hand. I just find it curious when people decry what others know, or claim in essense that they're not so smart merely because they're well read. I'm extremely well read, because I love reading. I'm fortunate that I can draw on that in discussions through recall (when in many of my posts I refer to studies, various discoveries, etc.). I often can't recall the source, though when needed or useful, I can usually find it or something similar on google to provide.

The ability to do that though comes from having seen and read the material first. Duh, I know. The 'smart' part only comes from when you can tie in certain things that might not at a glance seem apropos, yet provides some insight or information to the discussion.

I know you think you're being witty by derailing it in such a fashion, but in reality you're missing the point.

Point being, if one were to attempt to make the argument (for example) that it all comes down to money simply because our court system, being what it is, offers an unfair advantage to wealth (which it does) because wealthy defendants can buy more effective counsel, better experts, and apply more resources than indigent defendants...that would be a basis for your opinion. If you felt more information on that topic was worthwhile, you could even provide good sources which discuss that disparity. I mention specifically that argument, because it's one I've made on why our court system is inherently unfair and unbalanced in terms of personal wealth. The only viable solutions though would be to either set a spending limit, allocate funds to the defendant, or provide everyone with assigned counsel. None of which are likely to happen in the near future. The only addition I have to add to that is that the state (many states, perhaps all though I'm not certain if it's all) provide additional funds to the defendant in 'serious' trials (death penalty cases, etc.) for experts when the prosecution uses experts in order to have the same standard of counsel. There are many cases though where such requests are denied, and the defendant simply cannot afford to have additional tests performed, experts hired, or investigative work done on their case for lack of funds.

If you asked ME the basis for it, I could outline a few books I've read over the years, but I'd choose to direct you to a better resource that I think is more enlightening on the topic, which would be Project Innocence.

_________________

More mob justice. Lovely.

This was a non-violent crime. The justice system is not for exacting personal revenge upon targets of your ire or envy. It's a waste of money to keep her locked up in the first place, as is the case with most violent offenders.

Jail hasn't fixed all the problems of western society so far, and it won't fix Paris Hilton. She's the product of this sick, hedonistic culture. You shit all over her, but so are you, you're just not rich and stupid.

Err

Fixed it in my quoting it too. The point of locking up non-violent offenders is NOT for the 'safety' of society. In the United States we have a penal system. It's for punishment. Additionally I would point out that her 'original' punishment was very much a slap on the wrist, and a suspended sentence which included no jail time. She violated her probation, which merited jail time. Which she got. It was a punishment that had been previously suspended because she was a non-violent offender, first time offender, blah blah blah, and was reinstated when she refused to abide by the conditions of her probation.

If she violates the house arrest, she would go back to jail. What alternative solutions would you propose? A fine, not very punative for her. Community service? Okay what if she doesn't do that? Jail remains the effective means by which to penalize criminals for their actions; they lose their freedom.

_________________

Maybe, but drunk driving is a very serious issue and people that do it put the public in danger. Sorry, no source for that one, just my opinion.

You guys crack me up.

So, in the end all she's learned is she still gets what she wants and doesn't have to be responsible?


neat


All DUI should have 3-5 days mandatory jail time.

There are ways to punish people besides locking them up. You mentioned a few, and there are others. I would argue the only justifiable reason for imprisonment is when a person poses a real danger to the physical safety of others. It's expensive as hell, and deconditions people from normal societal functioning (institutionalizes them).

DUIs should be a permanent license revocation. If they're caught driving again, without a license, they should be indeed be locked up... for life. But this "punishment" stuff is just half-assed and a waste of time and money.

I've often wondered why luck and incompetency play any role in our penal system. This is a case in point: She DID put the public at risk of death, but because she was lucky enough not to actually hit anyone her sentence is reduced. Likewise with incompetence: If you attempt but fail to murder someone, you get a reduced sentence. Shouldn't INTENT be the determining factor for true justice?

When are you going to walk into work and start capping people, Dola?

Kidding aside, what's your alternative to the penal system? Lots of bitching, not a lot of solutions coming from you...

DUI as a non-violent crime. Well, I guess we can delve into semantics but let's not. Suffice it to say that a lot of people don't agree with you on that one. Whether people were hurt in her case or not.

Tarot, referring to her situation as a health condition is wrong. She refused to eat. There is no health condition.

Again, who cares?

Countless people get arrested for DUI every day. Countless people violate probation every day. Countless people are caught speeding every day. Countless people do all sorts of illegal shit every day. She's Paris Hilton, so you guys have to find a reason to bitch about things being unfair and/or unjust by her leaving jail early. I'm sure if you were in the same situation, you'd do everything you could to get out early. How many of you, when you heard that she was going to jail, thought, "I hope she gets raped by some big dyke bitch ha ha ha!" Would you think the same if it was one of your friends in that situation?

It's hard to assertain intent though, which is why it's a consideration in mitigation and charges. I mean, it's obvious enough when say someone tries to murder a spouse for insurance money...no question there what the intention was. If they don't succeed, they're penalized on the basis of what they actually did do, not what they would have done had they succeeded.

With DUIs...it's trickier IMO. Many people truly believe they're okay to drive. Many people who've gotten DUIs wouldn't have killed people on their road; their impairment was not severe enough. Unfortunately it sometimes is, or people get into accidents that they could have avoided had they not been impaired (over correcting and slamming into someone for example) and then they're charged based on the actual harm they've done.

In cases like that there is mitigation due to intent. If you are intoxicated and kill people you will be charged. However if you have 8 DUIs the charges will be quite different than if you have a spotless record and were only slightly over the legal limit. In both instances their intent probably isn't to kill people, but the guy who got 8 DUIs damn well knows it's a problem. Someone who had one beer too many...perhaps not.

On murder attempts though, I do question sentencing factors. I think someone who commits murder for hire, but hires an UC police officer (for example) should face far harsher sentences than they do. Clearly they desired the crime to be committed, and it would have been committed except that it was discovered in time and caught via a sting operation. There's even instances where the spouse has been shown a faked photo all on tape, simply because they need the most damning evidence for a jury. The most common defense to murder for hire (which is probably obvious) is that they claim they wouldn't have really gone through with it, but were afraid of the hitman, etc. and things just got out of their control. Many have sold that to a jury too. But with technology you can see (and probably have because some tapes have been shown on news programs) the person hiring the 'hitman', talking to them, and stating clearly and coldly what they want. When they gloat over the death photo, they're not going to convince a jury that they 'really didn't mean it'.

But some of those people get around 8-10 years in prison, which is more than some murderers get. =\ However had it gone through successfully, murder for hire is ALWAYS first degree murder, which generally carries a penalty of life, or in some states potential for the death penalty.

_________________

Glad you asked, because my views make the most sense within my own idea of what the anti-recidivism system (currently known as the 'justice' system) should look like. It would have a single goal, with a single caveat.

Its goal would be the protection of the welfare of society from harm. Its caveat would be giving second chances in some circumstances, and that the punishment should be the minimum required to prevent reoffense, not to 'punish'. But no third chances.

Categories of Crime

For a select list of the most violent crimes (rape, murder...), you don't get second chances, and there are no sentencing hearings. You get life. The end. (I would support a death sentence, but only on a higher standard of evidence, beyond any doubt whatsoever. Videotape and DNA would be mandatory.)

For lesser violent crimes (simple assault):

• A mandatory indefinite rehabilitation sentence, with a caveat. Your problem would be treated via drugs, psychology, therapy, whatever, and then you would be eligible for parole.
• However, you are not eligible for release until the psychiatric panel deems that you have addressed the mental, life-situation, or physical problem that caused you to offend.
• If approved, you're released with a 10-year window of probation.
• If you commit a similar or more severe crime in this time-frame, you get life. The end.

The point isn't to punish, but to remove people from society who are unable to control themselves, but in the interests of mercy, to give them one chance to be 'fixed'.

Non-violent crimes would be separated into two categories: crimes with victims, and crimes where there could have been victims, and moreover, special clauses for when those victims would have been hurt physically (this does not include willfully "attempted" violent crimes, they are prosecuted as if the crime had occurred, according to intent).

For non-violent crimes with victims (fraud, for example):

• Mandatory full financial restitution to the victim(s), if any.
• A first sentence would not entail incarceration, but rather a judge would determine what minimum change to your life, your status, or your person would be required to prevent you from committing this crime again. He could let you off with a warning (first-time teenage shoplifter), sentence you to community service or the like, give you a fine, house arrest, and so on.
• You would get a 5-year probationary period.
• Should you reoffend with a similar crime while on probation, you are put into mandatory indefinite psychological rehab at a secure centre until you are fit for release (if ever). I suspect for most people, serious mental health treatment would be sufficient.

For non-violent crimes where there could have been victims:

• A first sentence would not entail incarceration (to start with), but rather a judge would determine what change to your life, your status, or your person would be required to prevent you from committing the crime again. For instance, for a DUI with no victim, this would mean permanent license revocation. You would be required to sell your car, and never to own one again.
• Reoffending where the crime would not have resulted in a physically-hurt victim (shoplifting) would entail mandatory rehab, as above for non-violent crimes with victims.
• Reoffending where the crime might have hurt someone, such as DUI, you would be placed under the reform rules for violent crimes. Mandatory rehab, and if released you would be on 10-year probation. Another reoffence, and you get life. The end.

Victimless crimes (drugs) would not be crimes any longer. Any children would be removed from the situation, but otherwise, adults are free to fuck up their lives as much as they please. Money currently wasted on enforcing drug laws would be funneled to rehabilitation programs, safe-injection sites, and outreach services.

"Prison" for the violent offenders would not simply be a cage with steel bars. They would be expected to be productive. I personally would restart the idea of "penal colonies", except not as punishment, but rather to allow these people some measure of productivity in their remaining time in this world. If that means farming, or gardening, so be it. If that means studying literature, or drama, or film, so be it. If they are genuinely broken human beings and have to be locked up for fear of killing themselves, so be it. I would also provide an option for compassionate, painless suicide. But they would not have freedom, and would never again be permitted to rejoin normal society. Such colonies would be located far from populated areas, such as in the Arctic.

Hahahaha

Tarot, are you sure it was because of her refusing to eat? Because TMZ reports this (and I know TMZ is a typical paparazzi site...but it makes me wonder where your info came from, too).

_________________

She whined her way out of it, and how much do you want to bet that she breaks her house arrest somehow. I'd bet a dime easily.

Dola, maybe when someone you know gets hurt by a drunk driver, then you'll not be content with a pat on the bottom for punishment.

Knowing your actions have repercussions is what is needed to reduce the crime. I think they should also see some of the fucked up shit that happens to people hit by drunk drivers, as graphic as they can be, to get it into their head, to just be safe and not a fucknut.


We may never know the real reason Paris got out, in the end it doesn't matter, and as it is such a highly publicized event, nobody will learn anything from this. I think it's dumb so many people get of as is, and high profile cases should not be light, because then people will think that's all that will happen to them if they do get caught, and will not deter their actions.

The only way to discipline Paris is to take away her freedoms, money and nearly everything else doesn't matter to her and expect to hear something about her breaking her house arrest 'because she didn't know any better' within 2 weeks.

Hey, how is Al Sharpton's campaign against rap music? I've not heard anything out of him in a while so why is he yapping about this and not the rap music?

I wanna go to jail.

Someone needs to get her Mind Right.

She will get her Mind Right.

--J. "What's Your Dirt Doing in Jenna Malone's Hole?" D.

Trying to fit in now? Please don't.

Lines.

I see more lines.

--J.D.

No, I'm not sure. The nervous breakdown thing could be true as well, I was simply going off earlier stuff I'd read from a site similar to TMZ which claimed 'insider info'. It would be a legitimate cause. Generally for psychological problems they do not release due to that (too much liability), instead they're placed inpatient in various facilities. She could have been released to a private facility though, potentially. And it's not impossible they'd release her for that reason, I'm just not aware of any incident where that's ever been done (which isn't to say it hasn't...I'm just not aware of any).

_________________

I rarely post here and I was about to come post this rant myself because it pisses me off so much. My anger has less to do with who paris hilton is, and more to do with the fact that someone can be REPEATEDLY convicted for drunk driving offenses and serve no time for it. This bitch should have had her license revoked a long time ago, and if it were up to me your first DUI results a small jail sentence, your second lands your ass in jail for a decade, your third is life. Drunk driving is a VERY serious crime. Every time someone drives drunk they're recklessly endagering innocent people. The idea that paris hilton's release wasn't related toher wealth and fame is ridiculous. Of course it was. You think some inner city black kid serving a month long sentence for a repeat offense can get out by complaining about the food? She had a massive petition for her release going around (a petition that I'd like to use as a list of people who don't deserve to vote) based on the idea that someone who "lends her beauty to our otherwise medicore lives", but I'm sure that had nothing to do with it. I'm sure every detail of her jail life being published on the covers of magazines and read everywhere (I learned of this through the IMDB homepage headlines) didn't contribute to her release. I'm sure someone who doesn't have hundreds of millions of dollars can get house arrest instead of jail if they insist they're picky eaters. Really, Tarot, I'm shocked you're buying this.

Those responsible should be aware of appearances no matter how "pure" their intentions.

She should have her license revoked, and she should be in jail for violating probation for her previous offense. Period.

California appears to be the place to commit crimes if you are rich and popular. Certainly doing nothing to dispel that impression.

--J.D.

I disagree greatly with the idea of a "suspended license". If it were automatic revocation on DUI, I really doubt her "publicist" would have let her get behind the wheel again. There would have been no doubt. And if she did, no bullshit "28 day sentence", bitch, it's life.

Do you see where I'm coming from though? "Punishment" is silly. Either fix the broken person, or lock them up forever. Revenge may feel good but if it's done with half-assed measures like "suspended licenses" and tiny jail terms, I can't support it. It's deceptive and ineffectual.

I have no faith in our system, nor any faith in authority. This just reinforces my beliefs. I served more time than was necessary for a crime before, been physically assaulted by authority figures, and had a judge shit on my heritage with my family standing behind me. This blatant special treatment just adds another bitter mark to my opinion of the law.

"We are not a nation of men, but a nation of laws" ... which are written by men, the very ones so despised. And once it's "on the books", those 'men' are no longer accountable. It's the anonymous jackboot of the state enforcing them.

Telegram from Mr. Kettle! It's for you, Ms. Pot. It appears you're black.

Anyone believing this has anything to do with things not related to cash and celebrity status is fooling themselves. This isn't the 1st time a loophole has been found by spending a ton of cash on lawyers, and it won't be the last. If OJ wasn't an icon he'd still be rotting in jail, and if Paris wasn't the current "in" celeb, her whining would have fallen on deaf ears. Instead she is out early, few are surprised and many are annoyed. Mark me down for both.

If the reason is something silly like she didn't like the prison food, I think most people would be more forgiving of bending the standard fare rules instead of a house arrest release. And I don't mean surf and turf, I'd be thinking picking any of the standard prison meals. The hungrier you get the better bad food looks. If you are too still picky to eat such foods, society provides a simple solution...don't do things that land you in jail.

Since we are on the subject.. I would like to see a sliding scale for fines. I know if I get hit with a 5k fine... I am royally fucked.. If Hilton gets hit with a 5k fine she digs in her pocket to pull it out.

To people bringing in 500 bucks every 2 weeks, a $1,500 fine is MASSIVE.

It kind of goes along with the whole house arrest thing. Shit.. even now, I am cool with house arrest with my meager little dwelling.. I have everything I need right here.

I am not surprised. I was a little surprised she went to jail at all though. I hope that Judge sends her back. I can't even imagine being all like. "Ewwww gross, I can't eat this jail food" - then they send me home. fucking christ

Quite a few commentators have quipped that house arrest in Paris' home reads more like a sweepstakes prize.

She is appearing before the judge tomorrow who is, according to reports, not happy with the results.

--J.D.

--J.D.

Who cares? Seriously... is this even worthy of an actual thread?

We all know that celebrities, athletes, politicians, etc. get breaks in life. We know this. We know that if you are a name in society, that you can get away with certain things that common people cannot. It is an unfortunate fact of life, but nevertheless... it is truth.

If you are not happy with the way this case has been handled... then move out of the country. Because we all know that in America, your popularity is going to help you immensely in society with regards to your actions. And if you want to have the same rights and priviledges... then become a popular member of society. Star in a few movies, become a professional athlete in a major sport, become mayor and govenor of your city/state. Then you will be able to get out of jail after 3 days and have the news media report "health concerns" or whatever crap your public relations person spews at them.

At your job, you have star players and you have average players. Your star players, at times, has received preferrential treatment. Is it right? Regardless of your thoughts, it is the way it is. I am a pretty good employee at my company, and I have received preferrential treatment in the past. I am sure many of you have also received preferrential treatment as well over others... situations where you should have been put on disciplinary action, but your manager "looked the other way" because it was you. It happens. You either deal with it, or you work your butt off (or get incredibly lucky) and become one of the preferred players.

Paris Hilton is obviously a preferred player in society. She got it through family and luck, but nevertheless she has it. And she is going to milk it until she no longer is a preferred player. It is the way it is, we all know it, and why this is even a thread is beyond me. I guess it gives her more attention that she craves...

_________________

It's a thread because somebody wanted to talk about it. Injustice in America is a lot more interesting than some of the shit posted here.

sun 11:30 pm until thurs 2:30am. Not even 4 days, she whined... its to cold, my food tastes bad, cried to her lawyer and boom.

I hope she gets tossed back in.

The funny part is, because of the way the legal system works in California, the Sheriff can override the sentence of the court. The sheriff's office were the ones whom demanded she be released...but the judge has already demanded she reappear in court...

_________________

Indeed.

If one is not interested, do not read/post. I could see if someone "spammed" a section with Paris Hilton topics or some such nonsense.

--J.D.

You're right, maybe it's not about money.

Maybe she just sucked off the Sheriff.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I care. One of the reasons America is such a great country is its core value system of equality. As far as individual rights go, all men are created equal. You can find countless examples of when this isn't true, but it is what is SUPPOSED to be true. When a case comes up that defies this, the answer is not to ignore it or to "leave the country", you point it out and try to get back on course. If you don't think it matters, make a list of every famous person that truely got away with something they shouldn't have, and I can make a longer list of people who thought they were above the law, but wern't. I'll even start...Nixon.

This is turning into one of the better media circuses in recent memory, great day for telecommuting lol. Nothing like uninterrupted PARIS-GATE coverage on Fox News all day long.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

The judge didn't like this early release much and sent her back to serve her time.

And now, all of America is able to sleep freely tonight, without the restlessness of the Paris Hilton saga. Joy!

_________________

Schadenfreude [He knows no German.--Ed.]:



--J.D.

There is a certain carnal satisfaction in the news, I'll admit.

I'll agree with her on one thing though: it isn't fair. She shouldn't have been sent home, and shouldn't have been given a reduced sentence. That definitely wasn't fair for getting her hopes up, or for the idea of equal justice.

Money shots, thx fark!





Posted here in furtherance of the idea that all threads should deliver.

That first one Hara had posted, but the bandwidth on it is long gone.

For those that don't know, and for some reason read Doctorx's copy/paste with a couple dumb quips thrown in, the translation of "baka" is "fool".

I think this is a good thing, because something tells me she felt like she'd gotten herself out of it and was personally satisfied with the outcome that she had gotten her way, in the end though she didn't and threw a tantrum.