Paris Hilton - 3

I'm sorry, I'm sooooo sorry...

But I needed a place to respond to this from JBean:

But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced that she would serve the full 23 days. That means that Hilton will end up serving more time than 80% of other people in similar situations<<

Click to expand...

Good reasearch, finding that. This means, to me, that Paris is serving the same sentence or less as 20% of all similar criminals. Sounds to me like nothing unexpected or wrong.

Details said:

I'm sorry, I'm sooooo sorry...

But I needed a place to respond to this from JBean:
Good reasearch, finding that. This means, to me, that Paris is serving the same sentence or less as 20% of all similar criminals. Sounds to me like nothing unexpected or wrong.

Click to expand...

Thanks Details.
All I mean, and have been consistent about from the very beginning, is that she is serving more time than most would in her shoes.

This analysis is the most telling, IMO:
click the link below

'Twenty-three days would be considerably more than the average person given her sentence would actually serve.'




Did Hilton get special treatment?
click to enlarge



Photo Gallery
Paris Hilton Saga

JBean said:

Thanks Details.
All I mean, and have been consistent about from the very beginning, is that she is serving more time than most would in her shoes.

Click to expand...

Not everyone serves the average time though. Obviously. The variables that change what your sentence is are what judge you get, your own demeanor (I think thisis the primary reason - and a valid one - for Paris's sentence), whether or not you appear to have learned your lesson.

More than the average person would get doesn't mean she's being penalized for being Paris, just means that like anyone, her sentence varies by her individual circumstances.

Details said:

Not everyone serves the average time though. Obviously. The variables that change what your sentence is are what judge you get, your own demeanor (I think thisis the primary reason - and a valid one - for Paris's sentence), whether or not you appear to have learned your lesson.

More than the average person would get doesn't mean she's being penalized for being Paris, just means that like anyone, her sentence varies by her individual circumstances.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think she is most defintely being penalized for her celebrity (atypical sentence)and also rewarded for her celebrity (atypically responsive medical care), so I guess it all balances out. . JMHO as always.

I should add that this is a very much political issue between Sheriff dept and the courts. IMO, I don't think Sauer picked the penalty based on who she was as much as he picked it based on the fact that she is a celeb, any celeb. he knew it would get press and wanted to make a point about his sentences being carried out. the judges are increasingly frustrated with the Sheriff dept changing the sentences after custody is remanded to them.
He was making a statement about his power as opposed to the Sheriff dept power. This is an ongoig political /power struggle between these two entities and I think Sauer was trying to capitalize on it.
I think Baca also got his political agenda out there in his PC.

IMO Judge Sauer inteded for Ms. Hilton to serve her entire time, minus the usual time off for good behavior. He anticipated the 50% reduction in sentence and then added, "no house arrest, no electronic monitoring". I don't think the judge could have been clearer with the sentence he awarded to Ms. Hilton.

When Ms. Hilton appeared before this Judge she conducted herself shamefully. She disrespected the judge and the judicial process. She violated her parole and then had the audacity to say that she thought she could drive. Her publicist had told her she could. Obviously, Ms. Hilton never took her initial sentence seriously. She laughed off the entire process. She expected Mommy and Daddy to make it all go away because she's Paris Hilton.

Fortunately for Ms. Hilton she encountered a judge who was willing to what was right for not only the State of California, but right for Ms. Hilton herself. She has received a serious wake up call about her life. She now knows she is subject to society's limits and rules.

As for Ms. Hilton serving more than what is the average time based on statistics. Well, statistics are just that. A set of numbers, one inmate serves one day, one serves fifty. Average time served 25 days. What matters is that the judge inteded for Ms. Hilton to serve 23 days in jail. Although to some, it seems harsh. That's what wake-up calls are inteded to do, roust one out of a deep a sleep and make one sit up and take notice.

I think the Judge did what was right in this case. Ms. Hilton will be a changed person. Hopefully for the better. Perhaps she will enter adulthood now and become a lovely young woman. She has the potential to do so much good with her life. I'm hoping this time will benefit Ms. Hilton. This isn't about punishment, this is about rehabilitation.
:twocents:

Siren said:

IMO Judge Sauer inteded for Ms. Hilton to serve her entire time, minus the usual time off for good behavior. He anticipated the 50% reduction in sentence and then added, "no house arrest, no electronic monitoring". I don't think the judge could have been clearer with the sentence he awarded to Ms. Hilton.

When Ms. Hilton appeared before this Judge she conducted herself shamefully. She disrespected the judge and the judicial process. She violated her parole and then had the audacity to say that she thought she could drive. Her publicist had told her she could. Obviously, Ms. Hilton never took her initial sentence seriously. She laughed off the entire process. She expected Mommy and Daddy to make it all go away because she's Paris Hilton.

Fortunately for Ms. Hilton she encountered a judge who was willing to what was right for not only the State of California, but right for Ms. Hilton herself. She has received a serious wake up call about her life. She now knows she is subject to society's limits and rules.

As for Ms. Hilton serving more than what is the average time based on statistics. Well, statistics are just that. A set of numbers, one inmate serves one day, one serves fifty. Average time served 25 days. What matters is that the judge inteded for Ms. Hilton to serve 23 days in jail. Although to some, it seems harsh. That's what wake-up calls are inteded to do, roust one out of a deep a sleep and make one sit up and take notice.

I think the Judge did what was right in this case. Ms. Hilton will be a changed person. Hopefully for the better. Perhaps she will enter adulthood now and become a lovely young woman. She has the potential to do so much good with her life. I'm hoping this time will benefit Ms. Hilton. This isn't about punishment, this is about rehabilitation.
:twocents:

Click to expand...

Not a #3 Paris thread:banghead: . I promised myself I wouldn't post anymore on a Paris thread...so much for promises.
I agree with your post, Siren (every word). I have much respect for JBean, but I lean more towards your post. If jail doesn't fix Paris, nothing will.

I think her sentence was harsh, relative to other inmates time served. Not harsh in terms of sentencing in general. LA County is a mess. Their sentencing structure is a disaster due to the overcrowding in the US's largest jail system. I do not support reduced sentencing in any way shape or form. A lot of this has to do with the number of illegal aliens clogging up our system and the gridlock in our courts. NINETY PERCENT of inmates are in pre-trial status! They haven't even been convicted yet!
Also this analysis was based on probation violations , that is, driving with a suspended license while on DUI probation. Which means they all thought the law didn't apply to them or that they were above the law and drove against court order. Paris is cetainly not the only one with that attitude.

I think PH is a big zero. but I also think this thing was blown way out of proportion, by everyone involved.

JBean said:

I disagree. I think she is most defintely being penalized for her celebrity (atypical sentence)and also rewarded for her celebrity (atypically responsive medical care), so I guess it all balances out. . JMHO as always.

Click to expand...

I agree with everything in this post!

Siren said:

IMO Judge Sauer inteded for Ms. Hilton to serve her entire time, minus the usual time off for good behavior. He anticipated the 50% reduction in sentence and then added, "no house arrest, no electronic monitoring". I don't think the judge could have been clearer with the sentence he awarded to Ms. Hilton.

When Ms. Hilton appeared before this Judge she conducted herself shamefully. She disrespected the judge and the judicial process. She violated her parole and then had the audacity to say that she thought she could drive. Her publicist had told her she could. Obviously, Ms. Hilton never took her initial sentence seriously. She laughed off the entire process. She expected Mommy and Daddy to make it all go away because she's Paris Hilton.

Fortunately for Ms. Hilton she encountered a judge who was willing to what was right for not only the State of California, but right for Ms. Hilton herself. She has received a serious wake up call about her life. She now knows she is subject to society's limits and rules.

As for Ms. Hilton serving more than what is the average time based on statistics. Well, statistics are just that. A set of numbers, one inmate serves one day, one serves fifty. Average time served 25 days. What matters is that the judge inteded for Ms. Hilton to serve 23 days in jail. Although to some, it seems harsh. That's what wake-up calls are inteded to do, roust one out of a deep a sleep and make one sit up and take notice.

I think the Judge did what was right in this case. Ms. Hilton will be a changed person. Hopefully for the better. Perhaps she will enter adulthood now and become a lovely young woman. She has the potential to do so much good with her life. I'm hoping this time will benefit Ms. Hilton. This isn't about punishment, this is about rehabilitation.
:twocents:

Click to expand...

I thnk the same could be said about every person that violates their DUI probation by driving on a suspended license, which is my point. Why do we want to rehabilitate PH and not everyone else? lol.

I do not think she should get less time..
I think the others should get the same time she did OR MORE!

Why doesn't the judge make this same restrictive sentence to every DUI probation violater? because he can't. Our jails are too crowded. he picked her because he knew it would become known.
Why did he give her a high sentence relatively speaking?
It cannot be said it is because she thinks she is above the law, because all these people that drove on a suspended license all seemed to think they were above the law also.

Which means they all thought the law didn't apply to them or that they were above the law and drove against court order. Paris is cetainly not the only one with that attitude.

Click to expand...

I think Paris is just one of the 20&#37; who not only think the law doesn't apply to them - but also is willing to show that to the judge, rather than pretend or real repentance - and that 20% naturally get more severe sentences. Seeing Paris in court, any judge would know that she'd be driving again, and drunk, once she left. No question. Also - her probation violation was pretty severe - she wasn't just caught driving, she was caught 70 in a 40 with lights out - a serious issue all by itself.

I'm sure 80% of people with this violation show up on time, say they're sorry, they just had to go to work, pick up their child, it'll never happen again, they're so sorry, etc. And they get a lighter sentence for it - until they prove otherwise.

Ok, lets do a poll. (LOL) JBean or Siren? (just kidding)

arielilane said:

Not a #3 Paris thread:banghead: . I promised myself I wouldn't post anymore on a Paris thread...so much for promises.
I agree with your post, Siren (every word). I have much respect for JBean, but I lean more towards your post. If jail doesn't fix Paris, nothing will.

Click to expand...

OH dear you can disagree with me all day long. that is what makes the world go round:blowkiss:

but take your statement and I wonder why we aren't intereted in "fixing" all the DUI probation violators by giving them sentences like PH? I would certainly support that, but our jails can't. So how is it decided that PH gets the rehab sentence and most Joe Averages get the 4 day quicky?

arielilane said:

Ok, lets do a poll. (LOL) JBean or Siren? (just kidding)

Click to expand...

you nut.
I still don't think anyone even understands my position.

I think MORE DUI or reckless driving probation violators should get a hearty sentence and serve 50&#37;.
I'd like to raise the bar not lower it by excusing those that come to court and say they are sorry lol.

JBean said:

OH dear you can disagree with me all day long. that is what makes the world go round:blowkiss:

but take your statement and I wonder why we aren't intereted in "fixing" all the DUI probation violators by giving them sentences like PH? I would certainly support that, but our jails can't. So how is it decided that PH gets the rehab sentence and most Joe Averages get the 4 day quicky?

Click to expand...

Back at you :blowkiss:

I think they all should get the full sentence...too. I don't think we can fix it. It starts at home (get to the root). Drinking is glamorized and kids are growing up on it. The person needs to fix it themselves. Maybe if they were educated about it in school. Jail will scare some, but not all. If we fixed it then we wouldn't have to worry about overcrowded jails. lol

I wish I weren't so naive, but I believe judges should do just that, judge the case and determine the sentence based upon the criminal and the crime. For some people, just a night in jail is enough to scare them sober, for others it might take 90 days in county lock-up. The prosecutor presents the evidence and it is the responsibility of the judge to ensure that society is protected and that the crimnal is punished for their crime.

I don't think the initial few days that Ms. Hilton spent in lock-up were more than drama. It took her re-incarceration (or what should have been ongoing incarceration) for Ms. Hilton to realize that she can't go through life without suffering consequences for her own actions. I believe prior to this, money has been able to influence Ms. Hilton's consequences (none!).

As for why Ms. Hilton should receive extra help, it should be said that all inmates deserve this treatment. It was the judge that made the decision to ensure that Ms. Hilton received "rehabilitation." It's only a assumption, but I assume this is a judge who believes in his ability to make a difference and had dedicated his career to justice, not politics. Unfortunately, this has become a political debate. But I feel the judge stepped into this not for the political hoopla but for what was the right reason, justice for all concerned.

Again, IMHO.

JBean said:

you nut.
I still don't think anyone even understands my position.

I think MORE DUI or reckless driving probation violators should get a hearty sentence and serve 50%.
I'd like to raise the bar not lower it by excusing those that come to court and say they are sorry lol.

Click to expand...

I think i understand that position - I just can't agree. An offender who is defiant, and obviously paying no attention to the law should be treated differently than one who is visibly sorry (judges usually get pretty good at telling the fakers - although who cares if they're faking, so long as they don't DUI again). An offender who was caught driving on a suspended in a normal case is different than one caught 70 in a 40 on suspended. An offender who was driving to work, or somewhere they really needed to go is different than one driving to a party. An offender caught needing to drive and no money for a taxi, no friend who can help out is different than one who is just going out partying and playing, and could easily afford a taxi, driver or to throw the party at her own house.

I think a judge should have discretion to treat these cases differently. I also wouldn't mind if the sentences were higher for all of them, but I don't see a problem with Paris getting the 20%'ers sentence because I believe she deserved it more than the 80% - not because she's famous, not because the judge wanted to make a statement or fight with the sheriff, but because of her own actions.

Details said:

I think a judge should have discretion to treat these cases differently. I also wouldn't mind if the sentences were higher for all of them, but I don't see a problem with Paris getting the 20&#37;'ers sentence because I believe she deserved it more than the 80% - not because she's famous, not because the judge wanted to make a statement or fight with the sheriff, but because of her own actions.

Click to expand...

JBean,

I think we're in total agreement. The SYSTEM is flawed. The individual judges, prosecutors, etc. have the best of intentions but suffer from the flaws of the system.

But don't get me started on Lee Baca, he's a totally different story.

Details said:

I think i understand that position - I just can't agree. An offender who is defiant, and obviously paying no attention to the law should be treated differently than one who is visibly sorry (judges usually get pretty good at telling the fakers - although who cares if they're faking, so long as they don't DUI again). An offender who was caught driving on a suspended in a normal case is different than one caught 70 in a 40 on suspended. An offender who was driving to work, or somewhere they really needed to go is different than one driving to a party. An offender caught needing to drive and no money for a taxi, no friend who can help out is different than one who is just going out partying and playing, and could easily afford a taxi, driver or to throw the party at her own house.

I think a judge should have discretion to treat these cases differently. I also wouldn't mind if the sentences were higher for all of them, but I don't see a problem with Paris getting the 20%'ers sentence because I believe she deserved it more than the 80% - not because she's famous, not because the judge wanted to make a statement or fight with the sheriff, but because of her own actions.

Click to expand...

Too many assumptions Details I can't do anything with that. but I do appreciate your points. I am just going with what I know of this court system and this sherriff's dept. over the years and the stats.
I do disagree with your analysis of the judge, I think this was primarily political.
This is an ongoing battle.