Hilton's Check Out Time
(CBS)
Let’s get one thing clear. I cannot stand Paris Hilton. I despise everything she stands for and, to be quite honest, I don’t find her attractive or intriguing in the least. But I am not going to add my voice to the chorus singing meanly today about the unfair, unjust “sweetheart” deal she received today when she was released early from prison due to some sort of medical condition. Why? Because the truth is that if she were you or I she never in a million years would have been sentenced to such a long prison term to begin with.
First, she was given a 45-day sentence for violating the terms of her probation by driving with a suspended license. Just imagine what our world would look like if everyone caught driving with a suspended license while on probation caught six weeks in jail. Then, under California sentencing guidelines, that sentence was cut in half. Even then, at 23 days, it was longer than any first-time, non-violent probation offender would have a right to expect in the form of punishment.
Now, after five days in the pokey, she gets out of jail but will have to serve another 40 days—the full term of her original sentence—under house arrest. Did the princess get a break because she knows how to whine to the right people and in the right way? Did prison officials and prosecutors agree to the deal because they no longer wanted to deal with the hassle of housing Hilton in some special needs section of the prison? Does she really have a medical condition? Who knows. And, really, who cares?
The point is that you can’t argue that she got a break today because of her celebrity without acknowledging in the first place that her celebrity is what put her in prison. Her judge wanted to make an example of her—and he sure did. I think it is inevitable for judges or prosecutors to see high-profile defendants not just as individuals but as means to an end—the end being some sort of deterrent to others to avoid certain conduct. The judge hoped he would not only teach Hilton a lesson—and who among us wouldn’t want to do that?--but also teach everyone else out there on probation to get their driver’s licenses updated. Message received, judge.
It might have been messy—what about this woman’s life isn’t?—but now Paris is out of prison at roughly the same point she would have been out of prison had her name been Jane Doe or Andrew Cohen or whatever. That’s not cause for outrage. That’s cause for satisfaction. Celebrities are people, too. Even celebrities like this one.
Best-selling author Mitch Albom on his first nonfiction work since "Tuesdays with Morrie."
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 33 CommentsTHERE HAVE BEEN ADULT CASES IN THE STATES THAT I LIVE IN WHERE BY PEOPLE HAVE BEEN TICKETED WITH MORE THAN ONE OR TWO DUI"S THE END RESULT IS THERE HAVE BEEN ONE TO MANY VEHICULAR HOMICIDES
DUE TO THE INTOXICATED DRIVERS THESE PEOPLE HAVE GOTTEN OFF MANY TIMES
PARIS IS A CHILD THAT NEEDS TO REDIRECTED SHE AN HER FAMILY COULD DO ALOT FOR THE CAUSE OF MOTHERS AGAINST DRUNK DRIVERS I DO THINK THIS IS ANOTHER JUDGE THAT IS NOT EXPERIENCED AND WANTS HIS OWN 15 MINUTES OF FAME VERY SAD TO
SAY THE LEAST THIS YOUNG THING DOESNT DESERVE WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO HER
A SHE SHOULD BE SEVERLY REPRIMANDED HOUSE ARREST OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE WOULD BE GOOD
ASKING HER TO PUT HER ENERGY AND MONEY INTO SERVING A PUBLIC CAUSE WOULD BE BETTER
Posted by SamTheTVCat at 06:14 PM : Jun 08, 2007
Update: Apparently, bail is mandatory for misdemeanors being appealed so Paris is going to be out on bail by Monday night. As for Paris' appeal, IF they hear her case on the Constitutional issue, I would guess that the court will revert it back to the 23 days as a compromise. Courts can't really be allowed to grant the full possible sentence without the sheriff having the flexibility to balance his inmate load based, and sheriffs can't really be allowed to override judicial sentences based only on practicality concerns. The sentencing guidelines already address the issue of fairness, and because Paris' 45 day sentence was well within those confines I don't think there's any legal grounds for challenging the fairness of the sentence in relation to the 'average' sentence for dui's in LA county. Who knows whether the court of appeals will take the case though . . . maybe they don't have enough information yet to provide a remedy to the ongoing power struggle between the sheriff's office and the district court . . .
PS I was always skeptical of those claims that cops planted dope on people until they caught it happening on tape in that incident in Chicago . . .
I gotta cut back on the coffee.
You obviously have never known life in the lower middle class, sentences longer than that are routinely given for offenses as minor as a marijuana butt in the ashtray of your car, even if it wasn't yours. The police in LA and, i suspect, have incarcerated many Black men and women by tossing a joint into their car, then arresting them for possession, I know two people serving time for this.
Please spare us the rose glasses, some of us know better...
PS Also I'm not sure what is the basis for Andrew Cohen's guess that Paris' appeal doesn't stand a good chance of getting picked up because THIS appeal would actually stand a MUCH better chance of getting picked up because of the power issue between the sheriff's office and the district court. Although because Paris' sentence is so short, the issue'll might become moot first . . . who knows . . .
CBS News legal analyst Andrew Cohen says that Hilton's lawyers can appeal the ruling and try to get her released earlier.
"At a minimum she probably won't have to serve the full 45 days %u2014 probably won't be punished for the role she played in this sorry episode. But I can't imagine that too many appeals judges will want to rush to her rescue," Cohen says. "The real bad actor here wasn't Hilton; it was the sheriff, the people in charge of the prison, who allowed her to leave jail yesterday without first checking with the prosecutor and checking with the judge. And I'm surprised the judge didn't come down harder on the sheriff and a little less harsh on Hilton."
* * * * *
Say whaaaat?!? Anybody find Andrew Cohen's position difficult to reconcile with his position yesterday without some massive rationalizations?
If CBS really wants to up the quality of their reporting they ought to snap up that CNN analyst BJ Bernstein while/if she's still an independent contractor. An alternative might be Gloria Alred's daughter, I forgot her name - she might actually be a reporter for Court TV though . . .
It'll be interesting to see how much time Paris actually ends up serving. Something must be going on behind the scenes because this sheriff didn't seem concerned about what anybody else thought about his actions BEFORE he released her to home confinement so why should he give a hoot now.
I wouldn't be surprised if Arnie (as in The Governator) had to personally take the carrots and sticks to this guy, letting him know he understands that there's the power issue that's been brewing between the courts and the sheriff's office and that there's a huge problem with overcrowding, but that this isn't the case to be duking it out because it's making the California justice system look like a joke to the rest of the world, which already looks bad because of OJ and Robert Blake already. If Gov. Schwarzenegger offered this sheriff a dinner invite with him and Maria and a pledge to increase the funding in the next budget, I think whatever hold Paris had on this dude is going to be neutralized.
But who knows . . .
Others should not need to learn from her mistakes. Only she needs to. Hopefully that will happen now.
Apparently tomorrow, the judge hopes to hold the sheriff in contempt of court. I did a quick Goooogle search to find out the extent of the judge's power, and found a couple of sheriff contempt cases but none where the sheriff was jailed to compel him to act - like I only saw fines. So if all the court can do is fine the judge for non-compliance, maybe it's not a question of whether or not he has the authority but whether or not he can be made put Paris back in jail. I don't think he can.
I couldn't find anything on the appeals procedure for sheriffs being held in contempt, although since State versus State cases are handled by the US Supreme Court, I would guess this would be handled by the Cal Sup Ct (?)
You have said it correctly once again. This just proves that you are a fair and honest person, who deserves respect."
Posted by george2221 at 02:04 AM : Jun 08, 2007
WOW once again I don't mean to be mean, but I think the larger issue with regards to whether celebrities get preferential treatment is whether the punishments for certain crimes such as dui's ought to be somehow scaled to one's net worth (the law in some other countries - somebody from Australia or somewhere mentioned this in a previous Paris article). I think this was what the judge was trying to do when he actually sentenced Paris to time in jail.
I'm not sure which sentencing guideline Andrew Cohen is referring to specifically that dictates that "under California sentencing guidelines, that sentence was cut in half" because when I checked the codes, the only guideline in place for violating probation by driving with a suspended license is to impound the person's car. Now, here is where the Paris Hilton wealth factor renders the sentencing guidelines impotent because if they impounded her Bentley, she's got the $$$ to go out and by a couple more without a second thought. So given the unique situation of Paris not only having the wealth to render the 'fair and equitable' treatment totally worthless as applied to her, but also the celebrity to give her young fans (?!?) the mistaken impression that dui's have no consequences, I think there's a real issue of what the law perhaps OUGHT to be.
First, she'd pleaded no contest in January to reckless driving. That was in response to her Sept. 7th arrest. She was drunk enough to seem visibly drunk and failed a sobriety test. She had a blood-alcohol level of .08 percent. That was a DUI violation.
For that she was sentenced to 36 months probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines. Even after that, she had two other traffic stops and did not enrol in the mandated alcohol education program.
With her license suspended she was pulled over again on Jan. 15th. She signed a document acknowledging that she was not to drive. A month later, on Feb. 27 she was stopped again, speeding with no headlights at 11pm. The judge had the discretion to give her up to 90 days in jail and a $1,000 fine. She got half that and got time off for "good behaviour" even before she'd put one foot in front of the jail.
Some people might get lighter sentences. Many of us know people who've done a lot less than this and got stiffer ones. It simply isn't the case, given the REPEATED, flouting of the law, that she
got an unfair deal. Nor was this ONE lapse of judgement. To go to jail and get out after a few days because it made you cry is a legal travesty. or three. Not only should law be enforced, it should be SEEN to be enforced.
- 1
- 2
- next
See all 33 Comments