Paris out of jail... already???

Status
Not open for further replies.

Shimmer

Well-known member
Considering your solutions for 'debt repayment' allow the offenders to basically break off and 'escape', I find the solution pretty weak.

Inmates are often used by local areas to clean up the locale, etc., but those inmates have to earn the 'privilege'.

And, jail isn't about what the inmates want it to be, what would be 'ideal' for them while being there. Jail's about restriction of freedom...
 

Dizzy

Well-known member
The last thing we need is more Paris. In fact, people like her, Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan are the reason I've stopped watching TV.

And I really don't see how you think jail time<humiliation. This is not about humiliation. This is about someone understanding that if they do something wrong, we can remove them from the general population of society and get them to understand that this kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. If the courts deem that you can't drive, then don't drive. If they say that the legal BAC is .08, then don't drive with a BAC above that.

It's quite simple.

And you do understand that Electronic Monitering is not suppose to be instead of jail, but usually either in addition to or for those who have committed crimes that normally don't pose a threat to society as a whole. That's why Martha Stewart got EM- yeah, she knew about some inside info, but that won't hurt a kid on his way to school. Insider trading doesn't cause deaths; drunk driving does, and having a suspended liscense signifies that the state no longer has confidence in your ability to handle a car- you know, that 2 ton mass of steel hurtling along the highway at 65 mph.

You don't see that this isn't really about Paris. This is about protecting everyone else FROM Paris, so you keep her away from people so she can learn that she has to modify her behavior. This isn't about keeping Paris away because they're overreacting and want to make an example of her- they want to make sure that the 25 year old nurse driving home at 3 AM isn't mowed down by Paris in whatever really fast car she has this week because she's driving a car that can go 200mph and is drunk.

Unfortunately, we have so many jails because we have too many stupid people. If they stopped doing stupid things, we wouldn't have this problem. This was also the reason for social stigma years ago, but that has since been pretty much eradicated from our society and as such, we end up with blights such as Paris, who need to be taught lessons the hard way.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
Considering your solutions for 'debt repayment' allow the offenders to basically break off and 'escape', I find the solution pretty weak.

Escape? Yuor kidding right? I really doubt the majority of low level offenders in jail would be willing to ruin their lives over house arrest/community service. We already use electronic monitoring for a lot of this. It should be used more. Not only that, but the life interuption that jail forces on people, only serves to degrade our communities more, and make people more prone to being a repeat offender.

Quote:
Inmates are often used by local areas to clean up the locale, etc., but those inmates have to earn the 'privilege'.

If your in for a serious enough offense to warrant a signifigant time in jail, then yes, jail time, and community service to get out sooner is appropriate. But were not talking about people in jail for 25-life. This is about low level offenses, like Paris's, that have no reason clogging the system, and wasting money.

Quote:
And, jail isn't about what the inmates want it to be, what would be 'ideal' for them while being there. Jail's about restriction of freedom...

I'd like to think that the people in jail, are in there because there is real need to keep them seperate from the general population. Not because we haven't come up with a better way to punish people who break the law, and so it's the blanket response to every crime. Just dished out proportionateley to the offense.
 

Tash

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
I think she would learn a lot more picking up trash on the side of the freeway for 45 days. Instead of sitting on her butt in a VIP jail cell.

Edit~

Also, it's been reported that her dad is looking into clubs in Vegas to throw something like a $50,000+ "Out of Jail" party for her. I'm suuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure sitting in a nice little cell for a few weeks, reading books, and writing, watching TV, calling Celebs on the Phone, etc. Is doing a lot. :roll:



First off, from what I know, she doesn't have access to a cellphone so she won't be calling celebs all day.

And the normal sentence for her crime IS jailtime. So because she's a celeb, she shouldn't have to do that? Seriously. I know you're smarter than that.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dizzy
And I really don't see how you think jail time<humiliation. This is not about humiliation. This is about someone understanding that if they do something wrong, we can remove them from the general population of society and get them to understand that this kind of behavior is absolutely unacceptable. If the courts deem that you can't drive, then don't drive. If they say that the legal BAC is .08, then don't drive with a BAC above that.

I didn't say it was about humiliation. That would be a side effect of having to work off your debt, instead of sitting on your ass for a person like Paris. For low risk, low level offenders, community service + EM/house arrest > jail time.


Quote:
And you do understand that Electronic Monitering is not suppose to be instead of jail, but usually either in addition to or for those who have committed crimes that normally don't pose a threat to society as a whole. That's why Martha Stewart got EM- yeah, she knew about some inside info, but that won't hurt a kid on his way to school. Insider trading doesn't cause deaths; drunk driving does, and having a suspended liscense signifies that the state no longer has confidence in your ability to handle a car- you know, that 2000 ton mass of steel hurtling along the highway at 65 mph.

She never got sent to jail for drunk driving. So this has nothing to do with that. First time offenders never get a jail sentence beyond the initial arrest.

Driving with a suspended liscense doesn't kill people. There are lots of reasons you can have a suspended liscense that have nothing to do with alcohol, or your actual ability to drive a vehicle.

http://www.bruzzolaw.com/criminal-ch...d-license.html

Quote:
A person’s license can be suspended for a variety of reasons. A driving under the influence conviction can cause a license to be suspended or revoked; too many points (tickets) within a certain amount of time can cause a license to be suspended; failure to appear at court on a traffic ticket or failure to pay a fine on a traffic ticket can cause a person’s license to be suspended

And my BMW3, only weight ~3600lbs, or ~1.8 tons. 2000 is a bit much
winks.gif


Quote:
You don't see that this isn't really about Paris. This is about protecting everyone else FROM Paris, so you keep her away from people so she can learn that she has to modify her behavior. This isn't about keeping Paris away because they're overreacting and want to make an example of her- they want to make sure that the 25 year old nurse driving home at 3 AM isn't mowed down by Paris in whatever really fast car she has this week because she's driving a car that can go 200mph and is drunk.

Her jail time has nothing to do with her DUI. It's indirectly related, but not the reason she's in jail.

Quote:
Unfortunately, we have so many jails because we have too many stupid people. If they stopped doing stupid things, we wouldn't have this problem. This was also the reason for social stigma years ago, but that has since been pretty much eradicated from our society and as such, we end up with blights such as Paris, who need to be taught lessons the hard way.

If the party she's gonna have in 2 weeks is any indication, she hasn't learned a lesson. And if anything, is going to be in the spot light even more.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tash
First off, from what I know, she doesn't have access to a cellphone so she won't be calling celebs all day.

And the normal sentence for her crime IS jailtime. So because she's a celeb, she shouldn't have to do that? Seriously. I know you're smarter than that.


She called Barbara Walters the other day. Just because she doesn't have a cell phone, doesn't mean phone's are not availible in Jail.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tash
First off, from what I know, she doesn't have access to a cellphone so she won't be calling celebs all day.

And the normal sentence for her crime IS jailtime. So because she's a celeb, she shouldn't have to do that? Seriously. I know you're smarter than that.


No, I'm saying no one should do jail time for this. It's a waste of tax payer money.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
Escape? Yuor kidding right? I really doubt the majority of low level offenders in jail would be willing to ruin their lives over house arrest/community service. We already use electronic monitoring for a lot of this. It should be used more. Not only that, but the life interuption that jail forces on people, only serves to degrade our communities more, and make people more prone to being a repeat offender.

If you think I'm kidding, you've never worked in the CJS at all.
Quote:
If your in for a serious enough offense to warrant a signifigant time in jail, then yes, jail time, and community service to get out sooner is appropriate. But were not talking about people in jail for 25-life. This is about low level offenses, like Paris's, that have no reason clogging the system, and wasting money.

THIS IS NOT A LOW LEVEL OFFENSE. Good Lord. REPETITIVE OFFENDERS DESERVE STIFFER PUNISHMENT. This is not a difficult concept. At the point in time that the useless waste of carbon finally DOES wrap around a tree and die, I swear I will slap the first person who starts talking about the great tragedy that is her life.
She broke the law.
She got in trouble.
She didn't give a rat's ass.
She broke the law again.
She got in trouble again.
She didn't give a rat's ass. Again.
She broke the law AGAIN.
She's now in trouble she can't GET out of.
This is how the system is supposed to work, plain and simple.
She's an adult. She's damn near my age. She's made repetitive choices to REPEATEDLY endanger the lives of those around her, as well as her own life. While her life may not be precious to her, the lives of those around her don't deserve to be consistently endangered by the choices she intentionally makes. She's not uninformed, she's not ignorant, she's deliberately careless. Endlessly so, at that.
Quote:


I'd like to think that the people in jail, are in there because there is real need to keep them seperate from the general population. Not because we haven't come up with a better way to punish people who break the law, and so it's the blanket response to every crime. Just dished out proportionateley to the offense.

I don't see you taking initiative to revolutionalize a system.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
She's made repetitive choices to REPEATEDLY endanger the lives of those around her, as well as her own life. While her life may not be precious to her, the lives of those around her don't deserve to be consistently endangered by the choices she intentionally makes. She's not uninformed, she's not ignorant, she's deliberately careless. Endlessly so, at that.

The only time you can argue she has been a danger to someone, was the night she got a DUI. Thats IT. Everything else is he said she said, and with the amount of fake, false, and badly reoprted information that floats around the media circus to sell magazines, all of it is suspect.

Driving with a suspended license isn't dangerious. It might be dumb, but it's not dangerious.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
I don't see you taking initiative to revolutionalize a system.

Why bother? With the militant responses seen in this thread, it's a waste of time.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
The only time you can argue she has been a danger to someone, was the night she got a DUI. Thats IT. Everything else is he said she said, and with the amount of fake, false, and badly reoprted information that floats around the media circus to sell magazines, all of it is suspect.

Driving with a suspended license isn't dangerious. It might be dumb, but it's not dangerious.


Wow.
Just wow.

I absolutely cannot fathom such blind acceptance of a person based solely on the size of her bank account.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
Why bother? With the militant responses seen in this thread, it's a waste of time.

That's a very predictable answer, exactly what one would expect to hear.
Instead of making an attempt to make a solid and realistic plan and attempt to get the message heard, it's easier to just bitch and moan about the system.

Beautiful.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
That's a very predictable answer, exactly what one would expect to hear.
Instead of making an attempt to make a solid and realistic plan and attempt to get the message heard, it's easier to just bitch and moan about the system.

Beautiful.


Perhaps all of the negative response to the perfectly workable ideas that I had in this thread is the root of that.

This is a tuff case to really have this sort of discussion, and expect people to actually have a rational thought in though. Your all blinded by your personal disdain about celeb involved.
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shimmer
Wow.
Just wow.

I absolutely cannot fathom such blind acceptance of a person based solely on the size of her bank account.


Wow.
Just Wow.

I absoluteley cannot fathom such blind hatred of a person based soley on things the read in US weekly, and on TMZ.com.
 

Kimberleigh

Well-known member
Quote:
It should be used more. Not only that, but the life interuption that jail forces on people, only serves to degrade our communities more, and make people more prone to being a repeat offender.

"Jail forces on people"? I don't typically cuss on this forum because most of you don't, but I'm going to break off here and ask:

Are you out of your fucking mind?! It's a life interruption because she and/or they broke the fucking law! If she wasn't a stupid twat that drove drunk and got caught, received probation, didn't give a crap and continue to drive (when she has more money than your random deity and could afford a driver), and got in trouble, she wouldn't be in this situation. I feel like a broken record (and again, I can't be alone in this feeling) because I've pretty much repeated myself to no avail.

Do you disregard all laws because you think they're dumb?
 

Raerae

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kimberleigh
Do you disregard all laws because you think they're dumb?

Just like most people in this thread, I disregard lots of laws.

I'm a such a horrible person.

I'm proud to admit:
I speed on the freeway like all of SoCal.
I'll cross a street w/out useing the cross walk.
I've run red lights when the light takes a million years to turn green, and no cars are comming.
I don't pay my parking tickets.
I've parked in the Handicaped parking spot, for quick trips into the store.
I drank underaged.
I've used illegal substances at times in my life.
I watch people's NetFlix that get delivered to my apartment, and then send them back once I'm done with them.
I've watched several movies at a theatre, but only paid for one ticket. I've snuck into theatres.
I accept copied CD's and DVD's from friends that burn them for me, ILLEGALLY!!!!

I'm sure there is more!
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
Wow.
Just Wow.

I absoluteley cannot fathom such blind hatred of a person based soley on things the read in US weekly, and on TMZ.com.


That may be where you get YOUR information, but I assure you, those sites are hardly where I get mine.
 

Shimmer

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Raerae
Perhaps all of the negative response to the perfectly workable ideas that I had in this thread is the root of that.

This is a tuff case to really have this sort of discussion, and expect people to actually have a rational thought in though. Your all blinded by your personal disdain about celeb involved.


When you present a reasonable facsimile of a workable solution for the problems you perceive you might get a response closer to what you desire.
 

Kimberleigh

Well-known member
I found this on a website. It sums up EVERYTHING I've said in a much more succint way than I can apparently...

Quote:
After all, Joe Six Pack is hurt a lot more by a drunk driving offense than a Paris Hilton. She can afford the best legal counsel whereas even a run-of-the-mill attorney’s fees will seriously affect Joe Six Pack’s lifestyle. A fine of, say, $2500 is nothing to Paris Hilton but perhaps a month’s take home pay for him. A suspended license is devastating to most of us; someone with her resources can just hire a chauffeur. So, yeah, when she thumbs her nose at the law after being given a second chance, she ought to be slapped with a stiffer sentence.

Perhaps Hilton should have heeded the advice of her hard-partying predecessor Joe Walsh, who penned these epic words before she was even born:

My Maserati does one-eighty-five
I lost my license, now I don’t drive
I have a limo, ride in the back
I lock the doors in case I’m attacked

It kept him out of jail.
 

sandsonik

Well-known member
Quote:
Originally Posted by amoona
Honestly I think a lot of people are taking this thing WAY too seriously just because they hate Paris. She didn't murder anyone

But she easily COULD have. Let's not forget, she was driving drunk, and has a record of being a pretty bad driver even when sober. And apparently learned nothing from the experience because she continued driving home from clubs after her license was suspended. You know, it would be bad enough if you or I got behind the wheel after drinking, but Paris has drivers so there's really no excuse!

But anyway, she's not in jail because she drove drunk; it's her flagrant disregard for the law after being caught. The judge had no other way to get her attention! She didn't do the alcohol education program, and she lied about not knowing her license was suspended and got caught driving two more times, then showed up late to court on top of that. That's NOT something that just happens to anybody. It happens to someone who believes the law doesn't apply to them. Her mom said as much when she said she doesn't believe Paris should be punished because the Hiltons give so much to charity (huh?) and because Paris provides so much glamor to people's mundane lives. Gimme a break.

Yeah, the 45 days sounds harsh, but she was never going to do 45 days anyway. What was the judge supposed to do; tell her AGAIN that she can't drive? Lengthen a probation that means nothing to her?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top