Just seen that Paris is going back to the big house.

Don't they teach dignity at the finishing school that she graduated from? You'd think she was going to the guillotine. Even Marie Antoinette had more class.

Go figure how a 'warden' has the right to decide to let her go home. That's what O'Reilly was saying last night.

She needs to join the real world but the justice system is NOT the same for the rich who can hire expensive lawyers.

Follow the Fox chopper here:
http://foxnews-foxstream.wm.llnwd.net/foxnews_foxstream

Yes but it was her handmaid's weeping fit that helped put an end to most of the madness.

I feel sorry for her.......



NOT!

Call the waaaaaaaammmmmmbbbbbuuuulllaaaaannnnccccceeeee!!!!!

Poor Paris,guess she gave "liberties" to the Warden for noth'in

Maybe he wanted another slice

Ya know, "Eat the Rich" by Aerosmith came on iTunes just as I opened this thread...... I think it appropriate....

� sobbing, screaming "Mom!"



"unspecified medical condition:"

"Unspecified" because it has only now become recognized as a "medical" condition, and medicine has yet to coin a euphemistic "medical" term for it. ("Acute arrested-development disorder" or "acute perpetuated emotional-infancy syndrome," perhaps?)

In benighted olden days, it was considered a problem of the ego, not of the soma. The old terms for it were brat and spoiled � sometimes combined, often with the term rotten appended.

The ancient terms for its "symptoms" were tantrums and fits.

We're terribly indebted to the Hilton doctors for thus shining the bright lights of sensitivity and compassion into the dark corners of ancient ignorance.

I cant hate somebody just bcause they have more money than I do. I also cant hate someone based on how much money, or what family name they came from. Paris committed a crime, therfore, she is not exempt from the law and should pay her debt to society by doing her time. I do not condone DUI in any circumstance. I just hate to hear people put someone down based on the fact that they have money. There is no shame in being rich. There is also no shame in having a Hilton be your daddy. Shame and embarrasment come from ACTIONS, like driving under the influence. Shame sould not come from the size of your bank account, ever.

I guess she never learned about noble's oblidge'
Just another spoiled rich brat that offers nothing just takes, just like her spoiled parents. I hope she spends the whole forty five days just because of this crap and that sheriff needs to be investigated for malfesance, if not outright bribe taking.

Nor should justice.
M

I takes little money to be an ignorant, spoiled, skanky, sniveling, whiny, self aggrandizing, b$^%h.

Many of us can not stand the woman. But that dislike is based only on her publicly displayed personality. It has nothing to do with her bank account.

I am sure the accompanying photo was staged for sympathy. She's getting nothing from me but laughter.

I think peoples issue isn't that she's rich, it's that she's something that rhymes with rich and isn't responsible for herself.

Right! Even how a person legitimately became rich � or how rich he became � is no sound reason for either hatred or favor.

But damned if I'm not disgusted by and tired of Paris Hilton. Would love to learn something to commend her. And of course to hear far less about her as if she's one of the most valuable people in the world.

.....I agree 100%! Well said. Poor little Paris never grew up. It's time for her to buck up and deal with being an adult, responsible for her choices,equal under the law. I believe this could be a wonderful thing for Paris,giving her a chance to really think and mature to a better way of living. Jail isn't necessarily a bad deal it could get her on a future course of more rewarding living!...I'll let that be my prayer for her...Serve your time Paris, and remember, "Two men look out from prison bars, one sees mud, the other stars"..

I think the the American justice system stood a little taller today. One law - for all. For driving double the speed limit, while drunk, then getting stopped TWO more times by the police for more traffic offences - while ordered not to drive by the courts - I think she got off light, even as it is now.

By MARIA NEWMAN
Published: June 8, 2007
A judge today ordered a tearful Paris Hilton back to jail, reversing a decision by the Los Angeles County sheriff to release her and keep her under house arrest after she had served only five days of a 45-day sentence.

Paris Hilton on her way to the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department on Friday.
Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer said that Ms. Hilton will have to serve the entire sentence he had handed down last month for repeatedly violating the terms of her probation on alcohol-related reckless driving charges stemming from an incident last year.

As Ms. Hilton was led away to await her trip back to jail, she turned to her parents and said, "It�s not right!" The Associated Press reported.

The hearing had been delayed for more than an hour after Ms. Hilton and her lawyers insisted that she be allowed to talk to the judge by telephone, instead of appearing in person. The judge would not allow it, and ordered a sheriff�s deputy to drive to Ms. Hilton�s mansion in the Hollywood Hills, where she was handcuffed and brought in.

As Ms. Hilton was driven back to court, her trip followed by news helicopters, she cried in the back seat of the police cruiser. When she entered the courtroom, where her parents were also waiting, she broke down and sobbed.

Sheriff Lee Baca set off a furor in legal circles and beyond when his office announced on Thursday that Ms. Hilton would be allowed out of jail and instead put under house arrest because of an unspecified �medical condition.�

The city attorney whose office prosecuted her case, Rocky Delgadillo, said it was a case of preferential treatment for a celebrity. He asked the judge to order Ms. Hilton back to jail and asked the sheriff�s department to show why it should not be held in contempt of court for letting her go in the first place.

�We cannot tolerate a two-tiered jail system where the rich and powerful receive special treatment,� Mr. Delgadillo said after learning of the release.

Officials had said Ms. Hilton, a hotel heiress and cable television star, would probably spend only about 23 days behind bars because of automatic credits for good behavior, but prosecutors had not expected her to serve only five days.

In the original order sentencing Ms. Hilton to jail, the judge had specifically stated that Ms. Hilton would not be allowed a work furlough, work release or an electronic monitoring device in lieu of jail time. Ms. Hilton�s early release brought a storm of criticism.

Najee Ali, a community activist in South Los Angeles who heads Project Islamic Hope, said he was disappointed in the sheriff�s decision.

�It�s shocking that we�re living in a star struck judicial system,� he said. �Sheriff Baca caved in to the star power, the celebrity and wealth of the Hilton family. What happened is unprecedented.

�There are hundreds and perhaps thousands of inmates in Los Angeles County jails who have much more serious illnesses like AIDs, heart problems and they have never been released to go home.� On the television show The View, Elisabeth Hasselbeck sounded off on the early release, calling Ms. Hilton�s transfer "disgusting." She said it sends a message that "if you�re rich and you�re hot" then "we�ll let you off the hook."

The county supervisor, Don Knabe, told The Associated Press: �What transpired here is outrageous.� He said he received more than 400 angry e-mails and hundreds more phone calls from around the country. Ms. Hilton�s return home gives the impression of �celebrity justice being handed out,� he said.

City attorney spokesman Nick Velasquez said earlier Thursday that the office had been �inundated with calls and emails from people,� with �100 percent of them� angry about Hilton�s release.

Mr. Delgadillo said that no one had shown that Ms. Hilton suffered from any malady that could not be treated while she was serving her sentence. �Los Angeles County Jail medical facilities are well-equipped to deal with medical situations involving inmates,� he added.

Meanwhile, sheriff�s department spokesman Steve Whitmore told KNBC-TV that the contempt accusation �appears to be another Rocky Delgadillo press stunt.�

�We�ve examined documents and will respond accordingly in court,� he said.

But even within the sheriff�s department, others disagreed. Steve Remige, president of the Association of Los Angeles County Deputy Sheriffs, told KNBC that the system definitely worked in Ms. Hilton�s favor.

�It appears that in Los Angeles County, if you are a wealthy individual or famous individual, that you are getting preferential treatment in the county jail system, in the county criminal system,� Remige said.

The news about Ms. Hilton dominated news coverage today. At CNN, the news was breaking during the cable news network�s daily CNN International news hour. The Paris story led the show after one commercial break, coming even before updates on the G8 Summit and Italy�s Rendition Trial.

�It�s the kind of day where we�ll always have Paris,� Stephen Frazier, one of the anchors, said, trying for a wry delivery.

Which big house? Hers or county lockup?

Just kidding... couldn't resist. I actually feel kind of sorry for her.

Penny

Money can't buy class... that is something to be learned by mother's and grandmother's knee...

Penny

I agree. The judge tacking on the extra 22 days wasn't judicially sound. What did she do wrong? Was she supposed to have told the Sheriff "I'm sorry but I don't think I should allow you to let me go home".

What I'm disgusted and tired of is how this is getting so much media attention. We have crooks like Jefferson running this country who are still in office two years after the FBI found $90K of bribe money in his freezer, yet he's still running around free. However, the whole world is ready to hang Paris Hilton because she got caught driving with a suspended license (she's not in for DUI, not that it matters, it's petty).

As long as it's more important to crucify some bimbo for being rich than it is to put away real crooks who actually do evil then our society will continue to decay. This farce is like the witch trial from a Monty Python movie.

Paris is being punished for being a spoiled rich woman/kid. In reality, she should be forced to do her time, and a FAIR amt.of time, based on the crime. If justice is blind, which it aint...but lets just say for farts and giggles that it is, then she should not serve one minute more or less than you or I would serve for he same crime and circumstance.

Driving DUI is NOT petty! I lost my closest friend to a DUI driver. He had three kids who are now fatherless.

She drove twice the speed limit while drunk - and then thumbed her nose at the legal system two more times, when she was stopped two more times for driving offences - committed while under a court prohibition against driving.

She's a danger to herself and society - and what's worse - she thinks laws don't apply to her.

Sorry to differ, but what she did is a BIG DEAL, or at least it should be...

Exactly. If I were incarcerated and someone came and said, "Get your things, you're going home for the rest of your sentence," I wouldn't have objected. When you're in jail or prison and someone in authority over you tells you to do something, you do it.

In a way, this "second" incarceration is crueler than the first because she thought she was done with jail... only to be taken back again. And now, she apparently has to serve a full 45 days, which wasn't originally the case. And that through no additional infraction or fault of her own.

The system and those within the system are socking it to her simply because they can. It's a power thing. I've seen it over and over again...

Penny

Brian, what Crow hunter said is true. She was never charged with DUI. Perhaps she should have been... but she never was. She was only charged with driving with a suspended license.

Penny

The problem is that you wouldn't have served a day. The Sheriff just gave a live news conference and is a bit pissed. He emphatically stated that it is policy that defendant inmates serve 1/10th of their time for this type offense and that if it wasn't Ms Hilton, she wouldn't be in jail at all. He said the only special treatment here was the Judge and City Attorney isolating her for heavy time only because of her celebrity status.

Los Angeles, CA: Following the release from prison of socialite Paris Hilton after just 3 days of her 23 day sentence, news is beginning to leak out of an epidemic of crying and mass hysteria that is sweeping the nation's prisons.

Apparently the news that Hilton, 26, a notorious cry-baby and prone to tantrums, had been released after spending two full days and nights blubbing uncontrollably in her cell has spurred other prisoners to adopt the same tactic in a bid to get their own sentences reduced.

Consequently, the floors of correctional facilities up and down the country are now awash with tears as thousands of prisoners cry, weep, wail, beat their breasts and throw themselves to the floor in an attempt to engender sympathy from the authorities.

The situation has become so serious in some institutions that extra supplies of tissues and crack teams of janitors trained in flood control have had to be drafted in at taxpayers' expense.

One inmate, Rocky "the fist" Sampoza, speaking by telephone from California's Century Regional Detention Facility where Ms Hilton had been held, managed to control his lacrimation long enough to tell us that after Hilton's departure just a few prisoners initially began crying in a calculated attempt to obtain sympathy. But as more and more prisoners joined in a form of mass hysteria began to take over and within a few hours, even those prisoners who had resolved to keep a stiff upper lip were affected.

"It was like a disease swept over the joint" said Mr Sampoza. "At first it was just a few, but then it was more and more and now it's just about everybody".

Apparently, in the worst affected institutions even some of the guards have succumbed and have had to be sent home to lie down and get a grip.

Dr Hertzog Willhlem of the Bern Institute of Psychology, a noted expert in the field of mass hysteria, told us "This is a very dangerous situation. When you have so many people crammed together in an enclosed place like a prison, it doesn't take much to set off an outbreak of hysteria. So many of those people are under great psychological pressure to start with that something like this is all that's needed to push them over the edge".

Paris Hilton, meanwhile, was unavailable for comment as, according to one of her aides, "she's all cried out".

Maybe she should be held to a high standard. Sometimes it comes with fame. Like ball players IMHO. They should be held to extra high standards as they are "role" models to many kids that dont' know any better.

I'm held to a higher standard. I have a commercial drivers license. My legal BAL is 0.01 Standard in the state is 0.08. And mine applies even if its the weekend and I'm in my personal, non commercial vehicle. That means not a touch of beer. Not even one, tis too risky.

She played, she got burned. Bout time IMHO.

Who...me????? Not with the ADA takin care of it!!! Seriously though......I have never had a DUI, and hope that I dont. I know a lot of folks who have and a short jail sentence didnt fix em either. It took a drug and alcohol rehab and some SERIOUS consequences to get them back on the straight an narrow. Sad truth is that some never make it out of alcoholism alive, worse yet, they take someone else with them. If paris wants to indulge in the fruit of the vine, she can afford a driver to get her home safely, and better yet, to protect the public citizens on the road who are at her mercy when she is behind the wheel afer having had one too many.

Paris is a distraction for people from reality.

I do think she needs to serve her time just like anyone else. I will feel sorry for her just like anyone else.

Why? What's she done to deserve this belated getting burned? It wouldn't be that she was born a Hilton and has a buttload of money would it?

I personally believe that the judge found himself in a position of power over a young woman who can pretty much have whatever she wants and do whatever she wants. And he was going to show her, by gum! It's hard for me to believe that he didn't get some sort of rush by being able to wield that sort of power over her. And I also believe that he is jealous of her position and her money... most of us would love to be able to live the life she lives. So he's going to take her down a peg or two.

Last Wednesday evening I was in prison teaching my Spanish class. The officer in charge of the education area was different than the one who is usually there. I went and signed in and told him I was there to teach Spanish. My students were waiting for me at the end of the hall, standing in the hall (not in the room yet). I asked the officer if the classroom was unlocked. He said yes. So I walked down to the end of the hall, said hello to my guys, and went to open the door to the classroom. It was locked. So I walked all the way back up to the officer's desk and told him the door was locked and I would need him to unlock it for me. He got up slowly, came down the hall slowly, and when he got there he made a show of reading the room number off v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-l-y (apparently to be sure he was unlocking the right room). The inmates got their hackles up immediately. One of the inmates took a step forward and started to open his mouth, and I put my hand up. He stopped and didn't say anything. After the officer had left, and we were in the room, I told the inmates that the officer was boss here, and we needed to respect him and obey him. If that meant wasting 10 minutes of class time while he opened the door for us, so be it. The previous evening when I asked him to announce the Spanish class (certain block officers won't let their inmates out, even with a pass, until they hear a class called on the loud speaker system), he told me I'd have to wait until he finished his strawberries. I just smiled at him, and said, "Thank you, I appreciate it." Some people get off on power trips. I will readily admit to any corrections officer in any institution that he/she has more power than I do.

Penny

� Right or wrong, USMC boot camp is rough for a reason � to convert I-think-for-myself individuals into team members who'll follow orders.

� Disciplining an unruly child often has to take long enough �
the reality of the loving parent's "this hurts me more than it hurts you"
� to get past the rebellious rage that weak or too-soon-over-with discipline merely aggravates.

There's hope for Paris Hilton if she has enough depth � hitherto unplumbed � strength, and wisdom to mature past the tantrum stage. It'll be most interesting to see. This jail term may well turn-out to be the best thing ever to happen to her. I hope so.

WELL SAID and I agree 100%. She is a citizen of this country and must obey the law. She is also allowed the priviledge of wealth and should not be punished or made an example of based soley on her wealth. It always amazes me how some people have the mindset that if a person has more then they should have to pay more. In our never ceasing search for equality among the classes the theory of "equal sacrifice" has came into play with some, not all, but some. What is a sacrifice for me might not be for you. Should you then be required to pay till it hurts??? Paris can afford anythiing she wants, so is it fair to say that she must pay more than others, for the same crime, so that she feels SACRIFICE?

To put things in perspective..Same jail, another star!




http://www.showbuzz.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/31/people/main1670691.shtml

My day isn't at all affected by Paris Hilton's actions. There are many wise points made in this thread regarding how she may eventually grow up with prompting from this episode.

That aside, some aspects of this worry me. I want to know the legal considerations of the judge doing what he did. If there's anything that bothers me, it's judges overstepping their bounds and I am frankly wondering about this case at the moment regarding that.

I think this guy (the judge) is suspect here big time.

Right now - I'll bet it's a miscommunication, right here and now I'll say she won't do a day over the revised sentence, which was what - 21 days?

You may well be right, Brian, but I wonder about the judge here and am inclined to think he overstepped his bounds. Note he isn't inclined to trouble the jail people for their decision...

There are no lessons learned if there is no sacrifice! So yes it is fair.

Judges have a lot of latitude in their sentencing requirements. Wonder why that is? Perhaps it is because the legal system recognizes that it takes different levels of training to instill a lesson into different people.

Ms. Hilton was apparently arrested for indiscriminately endangering the lives of her fellow citizens. For that offense she got probation and suspension of her license, in the hope that it might be enough to teach her a lesson.

Well, probation can not teach any lessons if it is contemptuously ignored and one continues on with his or her life as if it never happened.

It was stated here that this was Ms. Hilton's second time caught driving while suspended. Is not each time a probation violation on the first conviction? Does this not allow revisitation of the sentencing on the first "DUI" conviction?

If one contemptuously ignores the sentencing of the courts, one might expect the court to get a bit hard nosed with your next offense. At least that is how it works in Idaho.

After a DUI, two probation violations and two driving while suspended; it should be obvious to all that she needs a good hard kick in the arse to get her attention. It sounds to me that she finally found a judge with the juevos to do just that.



No disrespect intended. I certainly do not follow Ms Hilton's life and know only what I have read here about this case.

But if she had no DUI conviction, then how did she lose her license?

I accept those points, but I'm uninclined to reward the judge for his actions. The major issue to me is the law and the respect for who applies it to the best of their abilities. The judge effectively countermanded the decision of the jailers, who maybe know more about jailing than the judge does.

I think the judge is suspect here. I think he's acting a bit big for his britches. Prove me wrong or try to.

Maybe, but it sure makes me feel good. She acts too big for her ..thong..er.. well she just acts like she owns the world, maybe this will teach her a lesson. Doubtful, but I am hopeful.

The reality is she will probably sue and win for cruel and unusual punishment.

I fully understand your reply.

As we know, however, the law isn't actually supposed to take cheap shots.

I'm wondering if the judge didn't take a cheap shot here, legally. I'm inclined to think he did. And I think that bears no good will for the rest of us, nevermind Paris Hilton.

Kieth,

I can not nor would I even try.

I do applaud any criminal getting a punishment stiff enough to get his or her attention. It should happen in every case.

And yes, this young woman is now a criminal. She has shown herself to be a habitual offender with no regard to the American judicial system.

She would not have been suspended had she not shown a flagrant disregard for the safety of herself and others. And she would not be in the present pickle had she meekly bowed her head and accepted her spanking.

She could have easily gotten along with Daddy's limos and drivers, or with taxi's for length of her suspension. It is not like she could not afford the fare.

But Paris Hilton is the minor issue, not the major one now.

The judge is making himself deserving of scrutiny now.

Just how popular should judges' rulings be if they come on the outside of the law?

I agree with both you and Rost on the reason for the judge to seemingly overstepping his bounds with his decision to force paris to serve her complete term in jail. We as adults couldn't give a rats aze about paris, the big issue is that the younger crowd attempt to imitate what they view in the media. Like it or not paris is a role model, goes with the territory of being a public figure.

I'd lay some blame of her behavior on her parents. They've enabled paris to act they way she does. All this illness BS is her inability to accept the position she's put herself into, someone's fed her the thought that she's untouchable. Time for her to learn how cruel life can really be.

I guess I don't understand but when did the jailers get the authority to decide who was in jail and who was released? Isn't that what the Judge is supposed to do?

If Paris had a problem shouldn't it have been up to a Judge to change the terms of her sentence?

Where is the law that says the judge can not force her to serve the full term?

Just because it is inconvenient for the Sheriff and his jailers does not make it illegal. Nor does the fact that it does not happen with all offenders.

I fully understand your points about Paris Hilton, her parents and what Paris should likely come to know, but my question goes to the law.

Is the judge effectively enforcing a lesson we might think Paris Hilton should learn beyond his legal authority to do so?

There's a rat's nest in that that tangle.

This has been a great lesson for many people. Someone who broke the law was/is being punished for her illegal acts. Now let us apply the SAME LOGIC to illegal aliens. In all actuallity, the Senate got the hint when the latest "amnesty for illegal aliens" bill was defeated last week. Get a clue for all those "everybody but me" kinda folks. Maybe business as usual is no longer business as usual. kwg

Is it beyond his scope to enforce a sentance he's dictated?

In a general sense, I won't disagree with the thrust of your points, but the matter of this judge doing what he did is a matter of particular importance right now, given his emphatic intervention.

I want to know if it's legal.

Does the judge rule how the jails are operated? No. It's possible, however, that if they became responsible for that, too, their rulings might be affected somehow.

Part of the separate but equal powers that our system of government uses. Remember, a county Sheriff is elected, and carries his own authority. And it's the county's jail--not the court's. When jails get crowded, it is not unusual for sheriff's to make judgement calls and release "non-violent" offenders early. A judge may have a hard time even finding an elected public official in contempt for exercising his authority. In the end, the only thing a judge may have going is the "respect for the rule of law" thing in this case.

Just lock Paris in her private cell/suite and let her out for an hour a day............

Casey

From what I saw with a quick glance of the bill it favored "high tech" jobs. The higher the qualifications the person had the higher their score concerning their chance of obtaining citizenship. I'm not cofident those are the people that need to be the main target of any attempt to solve the illegal immigrations situation.

To some extent it is out of his hands--the local jail or state prison system takes over once sentence is imposed. The judge can modify the sentence if he chooses.

Casey

It occurred to me that each year thousands of young Americans have their freedoms curtailed, are required to follow orders, eat food that is less than gourmet fare, wear functional uniform clothing, and all for more than 45 days, and most survive it without permanent trauma. It is called basic military training.

Paul

Private Benjamin?

Casey

The penalties are legislated, and the judge is working within their latitude.

Paris is deathly frightened of drug withdrawl and DTs, IMO...just a gut feeling. She deserves all she is getting, expressly because she thumbs her nose at you, me, and our laws. We need to do the same with illegals now.

My understanding he put limitations on how the sentence was to be carried out.

For example, if a judge places an attorney in jail for contempt could a sherriff decide to release the attorney due to the contempt of court charge is not a physical injury crime?

Penny

Off topic, but I can't quite help... why are you teaching spanish at a prison? I'd think teaching the non english speaking inmates English would be a much better thing.

I'm not totally sure why that set me off but it did. And I'm sure there is a totally bigger picture.

Lately I need a Spanish class and we've had them at work a few times, but I cannot make myself sit through more than a few lessons before I get steamed and quit.

Jeff

I still have unresolved issues over the haircut!!!!!

That's a very interesting post going to the heart of my questions.

Is the judge doing his job watching and confirming/denying the work of jailers? If so, how come he didn't in this case call the jailers to court and punish them?

To me it seems they'd laugh to his face were they somehow punished by rulings he wisely omitted.

I hope she has fun in the 'pen. I can't stand that wench.

I understand your feelings. I don't give her much thought or feeling, frankly. But I do have questions about the judge. Did his thoughts/feelings prompt him to exceed his proper authority? If so, he must pay a price, however popular that excess might be. The man is in place to uphold the law, not exceed it.

Penny, honestly, you're full of it.

The JUDGE, not the sheriff, has the authority over sentencing. After her multiple DUI convictions and lack of any meaningful recrimination, he sentenced her BY THE BOOK.

Penny, you find fault in any sentence, time and again. Cut it out.

This time, she's guilty, the sentence is just, and DAMN IT, she needs to serve it.

Let it go.

Keith,

I don't believe he did in any way. A 5 day jail stay is a far bigger hardship for a struggling working stiff than a 45 day stay is to her. Loosing a week's paycheck can be devastating!

To make my concerns clearer, I won't presume to know why the jailers let her out. Maybe for good reasons and maybe not. That's another issue, as is the comparison of common people like us and the very rich, but however much we might like to retaliate about some disparities, the law is the law in some proper sense and shouldn't be subject to abuse by anyone -- even judges.

I'll never back down from that premise.

Very, very true.

Casey

A one day stay in jail can be devastating to many, much less five days. Apart from the possible loss of a job, as one example, there's also a stigma among many that isn't minor, were one to be "looked up."

But that isn't touching the point of my questions.

Is this judge an activist?

Just a few minutes ago FOX pundits reported that the judge's sentence included NO HOME DETENTION-- which make the Sheriff's actions in violation of the judge's order. The Court could now make a very good argument for contempt, and apparently the Court was not happy with the Sheriff.

The Sheriffs Department on the other hand, is now responsible for Paris's welfare--if anything happens to her, L.A. County and the Sheriffs Dept could find themselves in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit, given the financial clout of the Hiltons.

Looks to me like the Sheriff tried to get that blond outta his hair (pun intended) and send her home to do her time--and the judge called him on it

Casey

You're wrong, but its a typical response to justify hurting someone more because they have more.

Passing the bimbo � latest California version of passing the buck.

Thanks for that information, alpinecrick. If it pans out as true, many of my concerns may be answered. I appreciate it!

With all that's going on in the World today (i.e. war, illegal immigration , etc.), why is the fact some skanky little drunk driving rich girl has been thrown in the lock up for 45 days the primary topic of every major news outlet? No wonder our country is falling apart at the seams

HBB

That response is even used by some seeking higher office, come to think of it.

Good question, hillbillybear.

If it hadn't been for the judge's response to her being let out "early" by some definition, I'd have paid little notice.

The "reasoning" of the TV commentators on the Paris Hilton case is interesting � choosing first whether to be pro or con Paris, then sifting, selecting, and often ignoring and twisting reported facts to "justify" the original "conclusion."

I'm not the least surprised to see exactly the same process here.

I think the Judge saw someone who, despite repeated warnings, thought the law did not apply to her or her social class. Showing up late for court once and not showing up at all the second time is throwing that disrespect in the Judges face.
Her lawyer is either an idiot or even he can't get thru to her
I suspect someone has explained that if she keeps her mouth shut and goes with the program she stands a good chance of getting a lot of time knocked off.

Like tying a Mules ears together, sometimes you gotta pi$$ em off to get their attention.

I still wouldn't kick her out of bed....

if you play, you have to pay. about time

I'm laughing here because you made some fine, fine points there.

But, being a dedicated, died in the wool prick, I'm still not for a moment ready to praise the judge just yet. I'm more ready to kick him in the balls, frankly.

(OF COURSE I'M SPEAKING METAPHORICALLY...)

I wouldn't, either � nor would I get into her bed, for any reason or purpose, under any circumstance that I can imagine. At last, I go along with this reapplication of a slimy comedian's scurrilous remark about a certain very classy lady whom he happened to disagree with politically � he said that he wouldn't [bleep] her with a stolen [bleep].

I never have liked his way of saying it, but at last I understand his distaste.

Good to know tht SOMEONE is thinking like me on the subject.

I'm sure "My 20 Days in Jail" will make millions when she gets the book deal.

Paris(Hilton) is the reason GOD invented condoms....grin

[quote= died in the wool prick[/quote]
That sounds both difficult and painful........The Tech part of me wonders about the process

I'd take my chances!

For those who wonder, I'll pay hard attention to the law, but I've learned to give little respect to those who imagine their positions earning them exceptions.

Nearly everyone here sees Paris Hilton as being that exception, but in light of what's involved, she's the smallest player. It may well be that the judge is by far the larger and more active player here.

It may be that the judge imposed hard circumstances regarding Hilton's imposition, but one can expect that will eventually come to a settled, or court determined, conclusion.

Some of you have to consider how you pick your shots when you want to nail cultural targets of opportunity. Bad justice has a way of being perpetuated somehow, as does good justice.

If it weren't for Paris Hilton here, what would you like for yourself, if her case may in small measure create precedence in a court someday?

I'm sorry. I went to college, but that is a pile of word vomit!

How swell of you to explain yourself so well.

Decades ago I had people with a gun to my head do better than that.

Are you a pup?

The non-English speaking inmates learn English just by being there. Perhaps not as quickly as if they were in a class. No one speaks to them in Spanish; they are expected to learn English.

I was not the one who set up the Spanish language program there, but I found out about it shortly after it began, and I was invited to be part of it. I am into prison ministry, so the opportunity to volunteer inside a prison in a non-religious way was interesting to me. The inmates who are taking Spanish are doing it for a variety of reasons: to keep their minds busy, to "better" themselves by taking advantage of what the prison offers them, to become fluent enough to perhaps leave the U.S. and go live in Mexico when they are released (how's that for a switch? ), to become fluent enough that it may be the thing in their favor that lands them a job after release... many Spanish-speakers work in the food industry and the landscape industry. If an ex-offender can apply for a job and tell the owner or manager that he can communicate with that company's Spanish-speakers, it will be a plus for him.


Why did it set you off? (Whoops... you said you weren't sure. )


Why is that? The way the class is taught? Or...???

Penny

I agree.....

Casey

There are no lessons learned if there is no sacrifice! So yes it is fair.

[i][b]Judges have a lot of latitude in their sentencing requirements. Wonder why that is? Perhaps it is because the legal system recognizes that it takes different levels of training to instill a lesson into different people.
as if it never happened. [/b][/i][quote]

Think about this scenario:
What if you were driving down the interstate and got pulled over for speeding, the car following behind you is speeding as well so that driver gets pulled over with you. Same cop pulls you both over. You were both, in fact, speeding. The cop was within the confines of the law to pull you both over and the cop is justified in writing you both a ticket as you wer both speeding.
Now..there was no question that you both were breaking the law.

But what if when you go to court the judge says "Driver of car B, you must pay a ticket and court costs that total $200.00. You have had a couple of warnings so now we gotta do something before you kill someone. I know you dont make that much money delivering pizza for Pizza Hut so Im gonna set your fines and court cost at $200.00. Dont do it again."

Then you go in front of the judge and he says, "Idaho Shooter, you have had a couple of tickets and a few warnings, same as car B. Im gonna set your fine and court costs at $800.00. I know you make more money than the driver of car B. He was in an old chevy and you were driving an S series Volvo. You work for a large high profile company and live in a fine home. So since it will hurt you more, your fine is much higher because "There are no lessons learned if there is no sacrifice."

Would you still think that is fair, is justice served?, or is that flat out wrong??? Same offense, same place, same situation. Shouldnt the punishment be the same? What if our legal system was to start requiring that people produce tax returns and bank statements before punishment was rendered?

I said the judge... see the part of my message you quoted. I'm not sure what your point is.


When have I found fault in someone's sentence???


There's nothing to let go. I'm not her advocate. I simply said I sort of felt sorry for her. That doesn't mean I think she shouldn't serve her sentence. I think you're reading stuff into my post that isn't there...

Penny

You're on a central point here with that.

I agree wholeheartedly! I just believe that the price to play should not depend on your bank account or social status, in either diection!

I can't disagree with that after rereading the posts.

In benighted olden days, it was considered a problem of the ego, not of the soma. The old terms for it were brat and spoiled � sometimes combined, often with the term rotten appended.

The ancient terms for its "symptoms" were tantrums and fits.

I haven't figured out how to do the box thing, but I did manage to copy the above from Ken's post.
It very succinctly defines exactly what we face in our schools every day - children who disrupt the educational process by their behavior. They are treated in exactly the same way that Paris and her parents expect her to be treated.

In my daughters high school, the hispanic kids are in the spanish class to learn english. This is common in our state. My daughter says that the kids catch on to english really fast this way and they also help the other kids learn the spanish. I didnt realize it until my daughter took a few years of spanish but there are MANY spanish dialects. These hispanic kids help the teachers and students identify slang and dialect differences. I think its a mutually beneficial idea to combine both groups of kids/inmates in a prison to help one another reach a common goal! The educators in our school district say it has helped with the racial tension alot.

Ummmm...I didnt mean to say that we should combine kids WITH prison inmates......that came out wrong. I MEANT to say that the idea of pople working together was good....(Im having a blonde moment : ) Im laughing at myself on that one too!

I agree! I have had a couple of native Spanish speakers come to help with my class, but most of them don't want to come. When asked why not, one of them told one of the English-speaking inmates that he was embarrassed about his poor education and his poor Spanish... and didn't want to come to class and speak bad Spanish in front of me.

I think he could have learned some Spanish there as well! But he didn't want to come, and that was okay. Prison is kind of a strange place sometimes... a culture all its own. You don't show others any "weakness," and don't put yourself in a situation where others could catch you with any flaws. It's kind of hard to explain...

Penny

Well, how about if one pays a fine based on the same percentage of their income?--wouldn't that be equal?



They do--it's called family law--and the "fine" is based on a percentage of ONE persons income (but not the other person)......it's called child support..........sometimes they increase the fine by adding in alimony.......alimony is generally based on a percentage of income too.........

Casey

That never occurred to me when I read your post!

Penny

Even Paris' dog can't stand her:

http://img.youtube.com/vi/hg2kITi-bFo/2.jpg

Let's hear a grand Hallelujah! for the notion that when we get together at the Whittington Center next April, Paris won't be there, and we'll enjoy the exquisite presence of several infinitely classier ladies.

I can wardly hait!

Hallelujah!

A judge has no latitude in sentencing?

A judge has not the option of giving a stiffer sentence to a criminal who flagrantly violates probation?

Having more has nothing to do with the fact that the little bimbo refuses to abide by the rules of her original sentence.

The only thing of importance is the fact that she has become an habitual offender. That is why she needs slapped hard, it has nothing to do with her bank accounts.

She needs time in jail rather than a fine, and that does have something to do with her bank accounts. She would never notice a million dollar fine. But she will notice incarceration.

Give her a choice, a million dollar fine or a week in county lockup. What is she gonna choose? What is going to teach her a lesson?

Me, on the other hand. Give me a choice between 120 days or five thousand dollars, I'd have to take the 120 days. It would not hurt me as bad as the five thousand. The 120 days would not even hurt my employment, I have more vacation saved than that. Hell, I could get caught up on my reading.

Child support is not a fine, its to feed your kids. But this topic is about criminal law not family law. There are vast differences betweent the two. Child support and alimony SHOULD be based on income. Fines for a criminal act should fit the crime, not the offender. If the crime was of little consequence, the fine/punishment should reflect that. If the crime involved harming or placing annother person in danger.....LIKE A DUI, that should be a greater cost. My point is that the cost should be equal and ALL who commit that crime should pay the same cost. The price tag on the fine, in my opinion, should not be adjusted according to the persons income or social status.

I'm gettin' a kick outa ur sig.
Keep on keepin' on.....

Does the principle of "earliest in, earliest out" ever apply?

Thanks!

It was originally intended to be very temporary � but for some reason, the right time to replace it just hasn't come yet.

Presumably, Ken, we need only ask the judge.

Seems to me he knows a lot about that.

I worked for a per-diem agency and did nursing assignments on a part time basis when I was not at my full time job. I use to go to a prison a couple of counties away and do physicals, lab work, review medications, ect. The prison had an LPN who was there on a daily basis who gave routine medications and patched up cuts, ect. The law in Alabama requires that a nurse with an advanced degree review the inmates records, talk to the physicians and do annual physicals. I actually made some good money doing that. But you are right. The prison culture is very different. I never had to go INTO the prison. The inmates were brought to me in shackles by a guard. So I cant speak to the culture at large, other than to say that when I went there about once or twice a month, it made me thankful to not have to live there.

There are no lessons learned if there is no sacrifice! So yes it is fair.

[i][b]Judges have a lot of latitude in their sentencing requirements. Wonder why that is? Perhaps it is because the legal system recognizes that it takes different levels of training to instill a lesson into different people.
as if it never happened. [/b][/i]

It is none of my business what the judge does with the guy in car B. The only thing that is of any concern to me is, "Did I commit a crime?" Was the my sentence from the judge within the guidelines of the judicial system?"

Here in Idaho anyway, the judge has a set of minimums and maximums. He can set the sentence anywhere between those extremes. And he has the power to suspend all or part of that sentence. That is why it is called justice. And that is why the judge gets all of those reports from the probation officers and looks at prior convictions before he sets sentence.

The sentence handed down to "car B" simply is no skin off of my nose. I am not one to sit around and feel sorry for myself because my brother got a candy bar and I didn't. Him getting a candy bar did not hurt me any, nor did the fact that I did not get one.

The world ain't fair and that is all there is to it. One can either accept that and get on with living one's life. Or one can sit around moping about it and feeling sorry for his or her self until one dies.

Sam, Ken needs a Luca Brasi like most people need lutefisk. Not at all.

Stubborn cuss, ain't he?

Hehehe....
A night "in" Paris might solve that......sorry really bad joke

Stubborn and witty as ever...

Pass the lutefisk please, good stuff with a little melted butter on the side.

"Howell, you're a tough old bastard!" a friend said to me not long ago.

Then why do I feel so frail and fragile?

However seemingly appropriate regarding Paris Hilton, it's nowhere near the point of law I'm trying to address.

You see, courts/judges have to justify disparate treatment of offenders. Ones socio-economic status is not a legal reason to jail or imprison someone because the fine wont hurt enough. They do have discretion, but its not to take in to account the things you stated you would...good thing you're not a judge.

The judge is not concerned with "teaching a lesson" per se. He is, or should be concerned with the law. The law does not allow for stiffer punishment for the rich just like it doesn't for the poor. You punish the crime and the person as you would those similarly situated under the law. That means you can take in to account the good they have done, the harm they have done, their danger to the community, etc...one's bank account is not a legal reason to jail them when you wouldn't jail others for a similar offense and similar past criminal history because the fine wont hurt enough.

Everybody here has talked of money and privilege...can somebody tell me what that has gotten Paris in this venture? If I were keeping score I'd say she's well behind the power curve because of nothing more than who she is and the money she has. Her high powered lawyer didn't seem to be able to "beat the rap" in the original charge, nor keep them from violating her probation and sending her to jail. The only difference I see in her treatment vs. Jane Doe is that every move she makes she has a camera in her face...she can't take a vacation and not tell anyone where she is. The day she got sentenced on the DUI...how many others did to whose name we don't know? Yeah, she's getting special treatment alright...and I bet you her fortune she'd trade that "special treatment for being treated like the rest of L.A.'s convicted DUI drivers at this point.

As an aside...tell me why Paris should know or act any different. She was born with more money than she could ever spend...grew up and some might call her attractive though she'd not my type...and all her life she's done what she's done...now the "normal rich kids" in this world usually have to go to college and eventually make some of their own way, and if they do they grow up some and learn the ways of the real world...Paris on OTOH just about the time she needed to become an adult was offered a TV show...a chance to showcase her talents...that talent being a no ambition blond bimbo with no world skills...she made a profit being worthless as a contributor to society! Why! People thought it was entertaining...so know we have a 20 something rich girl...who has had it re-affirmed in her head that being who she is and acting that way is not only OK...people approve and will pay her to do so!

Paris is what she is...nothing more, nothing less...if you don't like her and you don't know her personally...then you can ONLY dislike her because she has more than you, doesn't have to work to be rich, doesn't have to work, etc...because as yet, nobody here has claimed to know her personally. And if the only thing you know about her is her TV/Hollywood persona...then your naive if you think you know who she really is.

Paris deserves to be given the same sentence as any other DUI convict violating probation by driving suspended. In MOST instances, thats a light slap on the wrist, not a month and a half in jail. And if the jail's normal time to serve is 10% of the actual sentence then she ought to serve just like any other DUI convict having their probation violated for driving suspended. No more, no less! IF the judge is making an example of her with unfair treatment...he'll pay in the long run!

It's a fine if I want to feed my own kids without paying somebody else to do it--otherwise it becomes mommy support.



More accurately, criminal law vs civil law vs the quasi-crimilized family law--which seems to operate outside of the other two.............





Not these days--see above.






Why one and not the other?



Why one and not the other?




The problem is, I know functioning alcholics who can drive better then some tee-totalers I know..........





Except for?.........quasi-criminal family law?

Yes, I realize what we are talking about--just pointing out the inconsistencies...............

Casey

I admire that post, .280Rem, very much.

Good for you!

Not true, my friend!

It is entirely logical, natural, and understandable � legitimate � to dislike her intensely on the basis of what she has publicly revealed herself to be.

Is that all that she is? Let's hope not. Let's assume not. Is it an accurate impression of who she predominantly is? Probably.

I don't like what I've seen of her, quite irrespective of how much money she's "worth." Neither character nor the dearth of it has all that much to do with income, savings, inheritance, or portfolio. I don't begrudge her a nickel of what she has, but I wouldn't pay a nickel for an hour of her time.

oldie:

"That horse is worth six hundred thousand dollars!"

"Ridiculous! How could a horse save that much money?"

NO, the world aint fair at all. But I can assure you that if you or someone you cared about received a sentence that was 5 times what someone else received for the same crime, you might feel a little unjustly treated. I dont know, you might not. I dont have a clue if Paris is moping and feeling sorry for herself. If she is, she shouldnt be. Cause fact of the matter is that her housekeeper is probably paid better than that judge will ever be and 45 days is not a lifetime. Her checking account will earn more intrest in those 45 days that some people will make in 20 years. I think she should serve her time, no matter how unjust she feels that it is. Seems like I remember her doing a show on the Simple Life where she stayed at a hog farm for a week. If she can do that, she can live thru a few weeks in the slammer. Then, when she gets out, she should go to some place exotic on a nice vacation. She should also send that judge a postcard from wherever she is and let him know that she will be donating a nice gift to whomever chooses to run against him in the next election.

I appreciate it! Hell, I'm coming across as a Paris Hilton fan. I'm not, but I don't hate her either. I can't even honestly say I find her attractive, though if I were single and with her money...we'll I wouldn't stand a snowballs chance!

Seriously though...I'm not an Oprah fan either, but damned if she didn't put it right. (paraphrasing) "I don't have time to think about her, she's a non-issue in my life."

Me, too!

Penny

You are SO contrary, Ken!

I expect Sam and I will fix that someday.

(Yes, we may bring lutefisk ... with BUTTER!)

Okay, that is the most informative thing I have read in this whole thread.

My son got into a bit of trouble when he was about fifteen. The judge seemed genuinely concerned with teaching him a lesson. The judge's words and the sentence seemed to have nothing to do with a "debt to society" and everything to do with "Hey kid, you messed up. You need a lesson so that you know better than to mess up again. This is going to hurt, but it is for your own good."

I was very impressed with the judge, and even my son admitted that she was very fair. I would not even want to think what this fine lady judge would have done with my son had he violated probation.

As it turned out he completed all the requirements of his probation within the first eight weeks and his one year probation was dismissed after five months.

While I do not have the benefit of a legal degree, that is justice to me.

Ms Hilton was apparently given every chance to repent and behave herself after her first offense. She refused and in my mind she needs jail time.

If not every offender gets the same jail time, that does not mean she deserves or needs it any less, it just means that others need it as well.

Ms Hilton is an adult. She is free to make her own choices in the world. She is apparently bright enough to see the consequences of those choices. So no, I feel no sympathy for her.

It is unfortunate that her mother and father had better things to do than instill the most basic of values into their child. But I know a lot of people who have done much better with even less parenting.



Now it is you who are making false assumptions.

I have seen Ms Hilton on her TV show, and I have seen enough news reports of her antics to make a valid judgment of her character. I do not believe for one instant that she is a good enough actress for her persona on her show to be pretend.

In actuality, all one needs to know about her to make a valid judgment of her character, is that she refuses to honor the suspension of her license. She thinks the law does not apply to her. I know others like that and they don't have any money. They should still be treated just as harshly as she.

There are a lot of people in this country who have a lot more money than the Hiltons. I bear them no ill will. Nor do I the Hiltons. But I do have a problem with spoiled brats of any economic class who thumb their noses at authority.

I can cope with lutefisk now, no butter required.

� Liquefy in Vita-Mix machine. (Add water if necessary.)
� Pour into feeding tube protruding from lower chest. (No taste buds!)

I've always said of this *&^%$#@! tube, to give credit where credit is due, It's the way to go if you have to eat lutefisk!

I think you've made many valid points there, but they serve your general point best without enforcement of a possibly illegal nature.

You'll blend everything? OOOoo, so good.

Think anchovies, Ken. Yes, anchovies & lutefisk. It works.

Now see the difference in the way our minds work.

I think the little tart needs to send the judge a note of apology for being such pain in his butt, and showing such contempt for his court and the legal system.

Then she should thank him for his generosity and leniency the first couple times she got into trouble.

And then she should thank him again for giving her the wake up call she needed to get her life on track and become a productive member of society.

And if she were my kid, I'd be kicking her butt until she did all of those things.

What do lutefisk and Paris have in common?






They both a little fishy.


I'll binge on either(simultaneously).....

If the judge were my agent, I may well send him a similar message to convey to the spoiled Miss Hilton, but he isn't my agent, nor is he yours.

He's an agent of the law though, the last I saw things.

Absolute lack of attraction.

hehe..

Sam, I'm just telling you right now that in days to come we may view some things differently, but so far you seem to be my younger brother I haven't yet found.

Such profound sensibilities we have in common have just about got to be genetic somehow.

Lefse... Brown sugar with it now and again, with cinnamon?

Ken, I have absolutely no idea what "lutefisk" is. But it must be really horrid if a comparison to Ms Hilton is valid.

You and I might have similar taste in ladies.

How do you feel about Sally Field?

Ah, now there is a brighter topic!

Lefse, brown sugar and butter(grin) is a great way to follow the lutefisk. Let's not forget the Swedish meatballs. I may not be smart but I have great tastes.......grin
On that note I do believe I'll enjoy another beer.

Cod soaked lye.

Old Norwegian delicacy.

Lutefisk is cod preserved with lye � a delicacy for those who've become bored with the usual forms of masochism.

Not long ago, I watched Absence of Malice on TV again for one reason only � Sally Field.

Yup, you're my younger brother so long lost. No doubt about it, Sam.

Maybe we should meet someday. Does that seem sensible to you?

Lefse is to kill for. One of the impenetrable mysteries of all time is how the same people who came-up with lutefisk also came-up with lefse.

You're confusing Paris with lutefisk again.......right????grin

Lefse � to purge the after taste of lutefisk?

Lutefisk � to make the taste of lefse more heavenly?

AAAuurrrgghhh!

It got my relatives to this continent, Ken, ages ago!

I'm appalled.

It looks to me that Sam & I have our work cut out for us.

I kind of like corn treated with lye and then canned. The cod does not sound so appetizing.

I am just young enough to not remember the Gidget days. But I have been enthralled with Sally Field since she was "The Flying Nun". I will still sit through the inane Burt Reynolds just so I can see her in "Smokey and the Bandit".

My heart has had brief yearnings for Valerie Bertinelli and Jodie Foster. But that little tiny piece not entirely owned by my lovely wife still belongs to Sally Field.

At least you haven't confused lefse with Paris.
Impenetrable mystery and all.......grin

God's miracle-working power is no doubt capable of instilling in me a taste for lutefisk.

But He's a merciful Father.

I do make it over to Eastern Montana every once in awhile.

Sam, whatever you do, don't let the wily Ken Howell wear you down with all his smart stuff. I don't, and I'm you're older brother.

Listen to ME, not him.

Hehe.
I'll try.....grin

I love grits and have learned to like hominy � but lutefisk remains an insurmountable obstacle.

hehehehe......

Sounds like you need some tiger dick soup........grin

Don't worry about that anymore. Sam and I can fix it. I have the touch and it usually runs in the family, so Sam likely has it as well.

Rest easy.

The force is strong in this one....

Should've said "remained" until I got this belly tube and my Vita-Mix machine.

Yeah!

Howell's powerless, Sam!

If my Swedish mother-in-law and my Norwegian sister-in-law had "the touch," it wasn't enough.

Ken, now that Sam and I are preparing your lunch, would you like your lutefisk with or without anchovies?

Frankly, I think they add a lot to an already scrumptious flavor. What a delightful complement to butter!

It's time for this hillbilly to crawl into bed.
Goodnight.

Yes, I'm about done for tonight.

Goodnight and best wishes to all.

Whatever bongs your gong � since you're the one who's gonna eat 'em.

Heh. So you think, sport.

Once I present it, you'll be begging for lots & lots of it. Yes, even though speaking so very modestly, I DO have the touch.

You're powerless in the face of that, Ken.

I'm a pretty fair and honest guy � I'll give it a receptive try. I can't swallow, so don't be offended when I spit it out. That's how I enjoy bona fide goodies like Oreos, Cheez Its, and pretzels.

(Chew 'em up and spit 'em out � the ultimate weight-loss diet! It let me shed about a hundred pounds.)

Sport, what I ever say or write to you has kindness much in the mix. You're a good guy.

I'm a fairly easy fellow to get along with.

I expect the same is true for my long lost little brother Sam, too, but I kinda hate to speak for him just yet.

Putting my last post in a different, maybe more illuminated manner, my friends may wonder about me, but they don't doubt my friendship.

You shouldn't either.

I have utterly no problem with the concept of justice for all; she's gotta be taught it's a bad thing to drink and drive. Makes my skin crawl, though, to think about the 20million-odd illegal aliens drifting around this country about which relatively nothing is being done. As with most human endeavors, law enforcement likes the easy targets that make them look like they're doing a great job.

Who's the bigger threat? Paris, or the Congressmen about to sell us all down the river on the illegals issue. I know which one I'd like to put in jail....

You made some good points there.

I don't.

"I have absolutely no idea what "lutefisk" is."
Count this among your blessings!

"Let's not forget the Swedish meatballs."
Nor the potato bologna - can't find any around here.

I'm sure there are a bunch of married guys on here that are use to that.....

Single guys too!!

Only if they're the spitter....

Since we don't know the details because you're son's "antics" were not splashed all over the news and tabloids, I guess we're to assume that your son is of high character even though your son obvously broke the law and got caught, because he completed probation? Or is this enough to make a valid judgement of his character? I see lots of POS's walk the line long enough to get through probation...in reality all it takes is ceasing criminal activity and in some cases doing a little community service. There's no real work involved.

I guess justice means different things to different people under different circumstances...some might say your son got off easy, but you call it justice...because he's your son and you were "impressed with the judge"...who let your son off. Ok then.



And you accuse me of making false assumptions? Were you neighbors of the Hiltons? Kknow Paris or her parents growing up?



Oh, I see, you've seen her on a TV show! Nice dose of reality there!

Again, I guess it's all a matter of perspective. Had your son never been in legal trouble I'm sure you, like some others, would draw the line at her merely breaking the law the first time...but since you've had a son to do that, then your standards is how the lawbreaker performs on probation...THAT is the true measure of character in your eyes huh? Well, we all have to have our standards.

Refusing the honor the license suspension is evidence of lack of character? Really? How is that? Let's say Paris wasn't a rich girl, but a married father of 4 with a job in a factory making ends meet barely. His wife works days too to help out but can't make enough to suppor them. He gets a DUI after having a few brews with his work buds after his shift. He takes the hit like a man and pleads guilty. Takes some money he's saved for a rainy day or to take his family on a nice trip to pay all his fines and costs at once and on time...goes to driving and DUI classes as ordered and on time. He has to take on a weekend job cutting grass with a friend of his and his landscape crew to make up the the money spent. He's never been in trouble before. The one hitch? To keep his day job, his only means is to drive to work...there isn't another way for him to get back and forth. So that represents his bad character because his license is suspended? Again, we can all make our judgements...but it seems every judgement made about Paris has to do with either her socio-economic status or her TV persona. Unless someone here can step up and say they know her personally, that seems to be the only way to judge her...unless we judge her solely for breaking the law...then we can lump her in the same "character boat" with your son can't we?

I'm just happy none of the pards I hang with would spend a second talking about Paris, gotta love the Campfire Knitting Circle....

Not about to read the whole thread. Just had to ask, if she was required to return 'lickity split'?

Speaking of Paris, you home yet?

Quite simply and bluntly, PH got 9 times the normal sentence of like offenders. The appeal will be filed on Monday and it will be interesting to see how the Appellate division views the Judge's conduct. After the Judge had already signed off on the 23 day sentence modification Order, there was absolutely no reason whatsover to punish PH with the extra 22 days yesterday. It was a pissing(biggest Johnson) contest between the Judge and the Sheriff and Paris suffered the brunt of their battle. Plenty of celebrities have walked out of the LA County jail with much less time for more severe offenses. She was inappropiately singled out for her wealth and fame and caught in the middle of a town political battle to boot! All of it makes for bad reasoning and judgment!!

I know that...you know that...but to many "justice" has been averted if the rich and famous, mostly the rich, don't get spanked a little harder because they have money and fines don't hurt them.

Well close. We flew from London Heathrow, thru JFK (thank goodness not La Guardia), to Sea Tac yesterday.

Head up north in a few hours. We're ready to be home. I added Paris pictures to my thread the Photography section.

My son made a mistake and he got a slap on the wrist which was just hard enough to make him see the error of his ways and behave himself for the ten years since. It is not that he has not been caught in subsequent offenses. It is that he has not done subsequent offenses.

Ms Hilton got caught and she got a slap on the wrist, but it was not enough to teach her a lesson. She has continued to offend and break probation.



These are your words and I heartily agree. It takes little effort to be a law abiding productive citizen. It takes less to behave yourself during probation. But Ms. Hilton refuses to put forth that tiniest little effort.

She repeatedly displays her contempt for the court, and she needs a slap that'll get her attention. I applaud the judge for giving it to her just as I applaud the judge in my son's case.

If not all offenders get that slap, I was not aware of that before this discussion. And that is a separate issue which should be addressed by our legal system.


Again your words. So you and I agree that there are POS's brought before the judge. How would a judge determine who is the POS? Flagrant contempt for his court might make for a quick determination!

Do you hold that Ms Hilton is not one of these POS's? What in her behavior might lead you to that conclusion? Is it the fact that she has a fat bank account perhaps?



Obviously !!!! I'd be very interested in hearing how you make the determination if one is a POS or not.



Bad character and stupidity in your example.

Bad character because he chooses his own pleasures over the safety of his fellow drivers when he went out drinking and then drove home. Stupidity because he chose his pleasures over his own safety and risk of arrest.

Bad character and stupidity both in the subsequent choices to dishonor the terms of his punishment which leads to further arrests.

And really not a fair example. I have worked with quite a few convicted of DUI. None of them had a problem getting a permit to drive to work after the first offense. But several of them had to face the consequences of abusing that privilege by driving to places other than work.



I am not sure who you are talking about here. It sure as heck is not me. My antipathy toward Ms. Hilton is based solely on her publicly displayed attitudes and behavior.



If you, especially with your history of police work and subsequent legal profession, can not see the difference between an adult who makes a mistake and then chooses to become a habitual offender and the person who makes one mistake in their teenage years and then goes on to buy a home, support and raise a family with no more hint of legal troubles during ten subsequent years.

Then sir, you are either obtuse or choosing to be argumentative for sport.

I suspect it to be the latter.

The lawyers and judges in this part of the country certainly have no trouble making the distinction and handing down appropriate punishments based upon that distinction.

I have seen DUI offenders locked up in OR and ID for a lot longer than a month for driving on their suspended license. And I have seen it cost them their employment.

On the face of it I agree with you Jim. Tell me this, if a prosecutor is offering/working a plea bargain with very wealthy defendant, versus a very poor defendant, for the same crime with essentially the same circumstances, would you/your office insist on different level of fines and/or restitution? (for the moment we'll leave out discussion of jail time).

Secondly, there was a good article recently in the WSJ about how judges will "impose savage sentences on a defendant that has the temerity to insist on a trial" (this was an article about plea bargains among other things). My observation is it is very true if a defendant is convicted in trial a judge will impose a much harsher sentence as opposed to a simply defendant pleading guilty without benefit of a plea bargain.

Casey

Given my observation in Colorado, the sentence imposed on 'ol Paris doesn't seem particularly harsh........I agree with the gist of your arguments Idaho Shooter........give 'em hell

Casey

Where did you get the info on normal sentences for violating probation and 2nd offense of DUI in L.A., Bob?

Do you think Paris and her family's attitude may have influenced the judge's decision? We know behavior in the courtroom has a influence--don't we?

Casey

Yeah, Pete Coors 24 hours of community service for driving while impaired and 3 months restricted license was a killer of a punishment. Did you observe that one, too?

Instead of Stockholm Syndrome now we have Paris syndrome.

Lutefisk
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Lutefisk is a traditional dish of the Nordic countries made from stockfish (air-dried whitefish) and soda lye (lut). In Sweden, it is called lutfisk, while in Finland it is known as lipe�kala. Its name literally means "lye fish", owing to the fact that it is made with caustic soda or potash lye.

Preparation
Lutefisk is made from air-dried whitefish (normally cod, but ling is also used), prepared with lye, in a sequence of particular treatments. The first treatment is to soak the stockfish in cold water for five to six days (with the water changed daily). The saturated stockfish is then soaked in an unchanged solution of cold water and lye for an additional two days. The fish will swell during this soaking, attaining an even larger size than in its original (undried) state, while its protein content decreases by more than 50 percent, producing its famous jelly-like consistency. When this treatment is finished, the fish (saturated with lye) has a pH value of 11�12, and is therefore caustic. To make the fish edible, a final treatment of yet another four to six days of soaking in cold water (also changed daily) is needed. Eventually, the lutefisk is ready to be cooked.

In Finland, the traditional reagent used is birch ash. It contains high amounts of potassium carbonate and hydrocarbonate, giving the fish more mellow treatment than sodium hydroxide (lyestone). It is important not to incubate the fish too long in the lye, because saponification of the fish fats may occur, effectively rendering the fish fats into soap. The term for such spoiled fish in Finnish is saippuakala (soap fish).

Cooking
After the preparation, the lutefisk is saturated with water and must therefore be cooked carefully so that it does not fall into pieces.

Then lutefisk does not need any additional water for the cooking; it is sufficient to place it in a pan, salt it, seal the lid tightly, and let it steam cook under a very low heat for 20�25 minutes. It is also possible to do this in an oven. There, the fish is put in an ovenproof dish, covered with aluminium foil, and baked at 225 �C (435 �F) for 40�50 minutes.

Another option is to parboil lutefisk. Wrap the lutefisk in cheesecloth and gently boil until tender. This usually takes a very short time, so care must be taken to watch the fish and remove it before it is ready to fall apart. Prepare a white sauce to serve over the lutefisk.

Lutefisk sold in North America may also be cooked in a microwave oven. The average cooking time is 8-10 minutes per whole fish (a package of two fish sides) at high power in a covered glass cooking dish, preferably made of Pyrex or Corningware. The cooking time will vary, depending upon the power of the microwave oven.

When cooking and eating lutefisk, it is important to clean the lutefisk and its residue off of pans, plates, and utensils immediately. Lutefisk left overnight becomes nearly impossible to remove. Sterling silver should never be used in the cooking, serving or eating of lutefisk, which will permanently ruin silver. Stainless steel utensils are recommended instead.

Eating

Norwegian Constitution Day dinner in the United States, with lutefisk. In the Nordic Countries, the "season" for lutefisk starts early in November and typically continues through Christmas. Lutefisk is also very popular in Nordic-American areas of the United States, particularly in the Upper Midwest.

Lutefisk is usually served with a variety of side dishes, including, but not limited to, bacon, green pea stew, potatoes, meatballs, gravy, mashed rutabaga, white sauce, melted or clarified butter, syrup, geitost (goat cheese), or "old" cheese (gammelost). In the United States, in particular, it is usually eaten with lefse. Side dishes vary greatly from family to family and region to region, and can be a source of contention when eaters of different "traditions" of lutefisk dine together.

Today, akvavit and beer often accompany the meal due to its use at festive and ceremonial occasions (and most eaters, regardless of side dish preferences, will argue that these beverages complement the meal perfectly). This is a recent innovation, however; due to its preservative qualities, lutefisk has traditionally been a common "everyday" meal in wintertime.

The dish has sometimes subjected Nordic-Americans to jokes about the personality traits "produced" as a side effect of the consumption of chemically-treated white fish. Lutefisk prepared from cod is somewhat notorious, even in Scandinavia, for its intense odor. Conversely, lutefisk prepared from pollock or haddock contains almost no odor.

Lutefisk has its fair share of devotees: in 2001, Norwegians consumed 2,055 tonnes of lutefisk in their homes and approximately 560 tonnes in restaurants. (To put this quantity in perspective, 2400 tons would fill approximately 80 full size semi trucks or a medium length goods train). Annual sales of lutefisk in North America exceed those in Norway.

The taste of well prepared lutefisk is extremely mild and mellow, and often the white sauce is spiced with pepper or other strong tasting spices to bring out the flavour.

Origins
The origins of lutefisk are a subject of debate. Some accounts mention a fish accidentally dropped in a washing bowl containing lye, and because of family poverty, the fish had to be eaten. Other stories discuss fires of various kinds, because ashes of wood combined with water will create lye. One possible scenario is that drying racks for stockfish caught fire, followed by days of rain, and then the fish, being too valuable to throw away even in this condition, was picked from the ashes, cleaned, prepared, and eaten. However, the use of softening with lye is actually a fairly common practice with many kinds of food (such as hominy), so it may have been a deliberate and not accidental move.

Traces in literature
When people first started eating lutefisk is also debated. Some enthusiasts claim that the dish has been consumed since the time of the Vikings, while others believe that its origins occurred in the 16th-century Netherlands. At any rate, it is generally agreed that the first written mention of "lutefisk" is in a letter written by Swedish king Gustav I in 1540, and the first written description of the preparation process is in Swedish archbishop Olaus Magnus's (1490�1557) personal writings from 1555. In Norway, author Henry Notaker (in the encyclopedia Apetittleksikon) states that the earliest historical traces are from the late 18th century in the southeastern region of the country. Additionally, a classic Norwegian cookbook ("Hanna Winsnes") from 1845 tells about how to make lye for lutefisk from a combination of birch ash, limestone, and water.

Folklore holds that lutefisk originated during the Viking pillages of Ireland, when St. Patrick sent men to pour lye on stores of dried fish on the longships, with the hope of poisoning the Vikings. However, rather than dying of poisoning, the Vikings declared lutefisk a delicacy. Some Scandinavian descendants claim that their strength and longevity are derived from eating lutefisk at least once a year.

Lutefisk and Norwegians
A misconception is that lutefisk is most popular in Norway. In fact, lutefisk is today more commonly eaten by Norwegian-Americans than by their counterparts in Norway. Both Glenwood, Minnesota, and Madison, Minnesota claim to be the "lutefisk capital of the world." A survey[1] performed by the National Information Office for Meat in Norway claimed that as few as 2 percent of Norwegians consume lutefisk on Christmas Eve (while 52 percent dine on rib roast, the most popular Christmas dinner in Norway), while 20 percent eat lutefisk before Christmas.

Lutefisk humour
Lutefisk eaters thrive on quotes and jokes from skeptics of lutefisk comparing it to everything from rat poison (which has a hint of truth to it, because of the traces of unnatural amino acid lysinoalanine found in lutefisk due to the reaction with lye) to weapons of mass destruction. A few examples are:

Quote from Garrison Keillor's book Lake Wobegon Days:
"Every Advent we entered the purgatory of lutefisk, a repulsive gelatinous fishlike dish that tasted of soap and gave off an odor that would gag a goat. We did this in honor of Norwegian ancestors, much as if survivors of a famine might celebrate their deliverance by feasting on elm bark. I always felt the cold creeps as Advent approached, knowing that this dread delicacy would be put before me and I�d be told, "Just have a little." Eating a little was like vomiting a little, just as bad as a lot."

Interview with Jeffrey Steingarten, author of The Man Who Ate Everything (translated quote from a 1999 article in Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet:)
"Lutefisk is not food, it is a weapon of mass destruction. It is currently the only exception for the man who ate everything. Otherwise, I am fairly liberal, I gladly eat worms and insects, but I draw the line on lutefisk."
"What is special with lutefisk?"
"Lutefisk is the Norwegians' attempt at conquering the world. When they discovered that Viking raids didn't give world supremacy, they invented a meal so terrifying, so cruel, that they could scare people to become one's subordinates. And if I'm not terribly wrong, you will be able to do it as well."
"But some people say that they like lutefisk. Do you think they tell the truth?"
"I do not know. Of all food, lutefisk is the only one that I don't take any stand on. I simply cannot decide whether it is nice or disgusting, if the taste is interesting or commonplace. The only thing I know, is that I like bacon, mustard and lefse. Lutefisk is an example of food that almost doesn't taste anything, but is so full of emotions that the taste buds get knocked out."

The Ole and Lena joke books make frequent references to lutefisk, for example:
Well, we tried the lutefisk trick and the raccoons went away, but now we've got a family of Norwegians living under our house!

Or this variation of O Tannenbaum:
O lutefisk, O lutefisk, how pungent your aroma / O lutefisk, O lutefisk, you put me in a coma

Other
The rocks studied by rovers on the planet Mars are often given humorous names. One that the Spirit rover examined for several days was called Lutefisk.
In the video game Psychonauts, one of the characters is named Nils Lutefisk, Nils being a common Norwegian name.
Lutefisk is prominently featured in an episode of King of the Hill. In "Revenge Of The Lutefisk," the new pastor of the Hills' church, a native of Minnesota, brings a dish of lutefisk to a church potluck. Though the other guests are wary of the dish, Bobby Hill tastes it and finds it so irresistible that he takes and consumes the whole platter under the buffet table. After it works its way through him in the church bathroom the next day, his grandfather walks into the bathroom and is repulsed by the smell, and so Bobby uses a match to cover the smell and accidentally lights the church on fire.
The 1999 film Drop Dead Gorgeous, set in the Midwest, makes a reference to lutefisk. One character mentions that it's best with "lots of butter."
Lutefisk is also the name of an open-source de novo sequencing package for mass spectrometry data.[1]
For a time, there was a Los Angeles, California-based punk rock band called "Lutefisk."
The Wisconsin Employees' right to know law regarding toxic substances specifically exempts Lutefisk (Wisc. Stat. 101.58(2)(j)(2)(f)[2])

Pete Coors was a 1st offense--DWAI (impaired--not drunk). Paris Hilton pleads guilty to a 2nd offense of DUI (drunk--not "merely" impaired)--AND SHE WAS BUSTED THE SECOND TIME WHILE STILL ON PROBATION FOR THE FIRST ONE! That has been part of the point of this thread.

Yes Bob, there is an "observable" difference between the two...........

Casey

edited to add--besides Pete Coors makes beer.....he has taste tester rights

Think I'll stick with walleye deep fried with a beer batter.

No..wrong again. Coors was legally drunk 0.088 and was offered a plea deal to a lesser included offense. PH was an 08 for only one DWI offense. Show me where PH plead guilty to a second offense DWI. Facts casey..facts!!!

I have only a passing knowledge of Lutefisk myself, but as often as poor Ken refers to it, he must be well acquainted with it..........I just haven't figure out if he he warning us to stay away from it or not.......

Ken, has Lutefisk become an essential part of your diet?

Casey

For those unfamiliar with lutefisk, think fish jello, or maybe more appropriately, fish-flavored tapioca.

BARF!!

Bob, it has been reported a bizillion times Paris was on probation for a previous DUI offense..................

The fact is Coors pleaded guilty to DWAI--that's all the "system" cares about. If you don't like it--complain to the DA. And it was still a first offense.........and the observable difference still applies.

Additionally, if you're so ramped up about unfairness, then you should be lobbying to undo Coors plea deal.............we won't even go into unfair/inequality of the family law system. system.........

Casey

Heck of a way to wreck a good fish (Cod). Much prefer the British way of prepairing it!

You're kidding me, right?

I'm merely addressing your comment PH pled guilty to a 2nd offense DWI. Focus Casey..focus!!You're the one who, with silly glee, was talking about your observations about Colorado's strong laws, not me. I'm a defense lawyer, why would I complain? Merely addressed "your observations" as posted to Idaho...they were most perceptive!

It's just that you've referred to often enough that I was thinkin' you have become overly familiar with the dish

Casey

Well think about it this way. Paris openly had contempt for the law, the judge could see this. From her demeanor in court, to showing up 30 min late, she was not taking the whole ordeal serious. I think the judge could see this, and I think he made the right call.
Who here doubts for a minute when Paris comes out of the slam she will have a brand new respect for the law, and the mother of attitude adjustments? Along with punishment for the crime, isn't that the goal?
For just a minute think if the Judge would have taken the stance that you advocate, do you think it would have done her any good, or just reinforced her contemp for the rule of law? I believe it was much more her attitude than her bank account.

Judge made the right call, someday if Paris has half a brain she will thank that judge. You guys can't help from kicking into lawyer mode, imagining the arguments that you would set forth with.

Yes, and my observations are that in Colorado one is going to do a minimum of 30 days for a second offense--especially within a short time span.......or worse for being on probation for the first--I can only speak what the news reported.

Casey

You may want to notice that most of my references to this culinary atrocity are responses to others' mention of it.

And certainly not laudatory �

One exposure to it is ample warning to the moderately discerning palate.

Barkoff...Good post. But, the Judge made up his mind and call before PH ever got to court. This ain't about PH, it's about the court's battle with the Sheriff's department. Do you even wonder why the judge didn't even consider going forward with the contempt portion of the motion. If not, let me tell you....the Judge would have been embarrassed if he had and would have been spanked by the appellate courts if he had as well. That star from "LOST", I mentioned before, was before the court on a probation violation for a 2nd DWI and a hit and run. 1 day in jail. Same court, same jail,TV star and more serious offenses. Doesn't that trouble you at all??

I do!

Casey...She didn't have a second offense DWI!!

Oh, I hope that that'll be the outcome of this fiasco!

The thought of the world having to put-up with more of the same old Paris Hilton ad nauseam is almost suicidally depressing. Not to mention the waste of human potential.

Ken

That Judge just put 10+ million dollars in PH's pocket. You think that PH's saturation was ad nauseum before, just wait till she gets out.

While I have you Ken...I forwarded a twenty spot your way to help defray your costs for those name tags and such!!

PS...If you don't need it all, buy some of that "pukefish" on me!!

While she is an idiot, I would still volunteer to have her remanded to my custody and she could even bring her movie camera.

Odd that a Paris Hilton thread dissolved into a rotten smelly fish thread!

Seems oddly fitting, somehow.

Yours may be the most pertinent post yet on this thread.....

Casey

Offer still stands.....

Not me!

I have quite enough making my life miserable as it is. I don't hanker for any more. Don't figure that I could stand it.

Two little boys noticed a lot of men going into and coming out of a house across the street.

"Must be selling something over there," one boy guessed.

"Wonder what?"

"How much money you got?"

"Dime."

"Gimme. I've got fifteen cents. I'll go get us a quarter's worth."

"Lady," he said to the woman who stood at the foot of the stairs taking five- and ten-dollar bills from the men before they went up, "whatever you're selling, I'd like a quarter's worth."

The madam took his money, boxed his ears, turned him around and kicked his butt, then turkey-walked him out onto the porch and kicked him down the front steps. Groggily, he picked himself up and staggered across the street.

"Well, what they sellin' over there?" his buddy asked.

"Golly, I don't know. But whatever it is, I'm sure glad I didn't buy five dollars' worth!"



I'm two bits shy for a quarter's worth of Paris.

Casey,

Believe it or not, I take nothing in to account when making my plea offers other than the crime, and past history. For instance, a first offense DUI. The statutory range of fines is $600-$1100. Period. The majority, like 95%, of first offense DUI gets the same offer from me. Minimum fine, Court Costs, and 10 days in jail suspended, 1 year of unsupervised probation. The conditions of probation are that they pay their court ordered money, fullfill the statutory requirements set out in the law regarding court referral/evaluation and treatment, and no new offenses. I have no say in the suspension of their license, nor does the judge, its mandatory. There is little for me to play with other than the length of suspended jail time and fine. If I'm following the law, and my ethical duty, all similarly situated offenders get the same offer. "Similarly situated" in the legal sense means the same crime and same history more or less. The only things that would change my offer thinking are: Was there a BAC so high that its reasonable to assume this is a habitual drunk that just never got caught til now, was there a wreck, were there injuries, and the like. The standard, run of the mill DUI gets the same minimum offer no matter what their socio-economic status...thats the legal and ethcial thing to do.

Idaho shooter...I like it...your son "makes mistakes"...Paris "flaunts the law". Isaac said it...Paris is paying 9 times the normal rate for the same crime. The only reason you want her to serve that time is because she can't be hurt with a fine. Thats not the point...except in your mind of course...and I wont attempt to argue against thinking like that. Its so far afield as to be ludicrous.

OK, just wondering.



I'm still thinking there was a previous history in Paris's case. And there is the alleged courtroom behavoir............

Casey

I was wrong, this is Paris Hilton's first DUI arrest. I mistakenly thought her two subsequent arrests since the DUI for traffic violations and driving with a suspended license also involved alcohol.

The two citations for driving with suspended license within the last 9 months would most likely be enough to land one in jail here in Colorado.

http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton92606cmp.html

Casey

I'm telling on ya'.......

Casey

280,

You still are not seeing the point! I have made this statement several times but I seem unable to put it into terms which you can understand. Perhaps I have failed to comprehend a problem with my literacy.

Ms Hilton made a mistake and she got a slap on the wrist. I have no problem with that.

It is her subsequent flagrant disregard for the law which, in my mind, mandates she gets spanked hard, and in a way which she will feel.

Were it my son or daughter who behaved in this manner, I would pray for the same in their case.

I think that any person who makes a habit of violating probation should be thrown into the can for a period long enough to get their attention. It is not that I have a prejudice toward this particular offender. I have the same prejudice toward all offenders of this habitual nature.

There, is it clear yet?


You have opened my eyes to a serious flaw in our legal system, if judges are not allowed to impose a sentence upon a person which will sting him.

I could certainly see the attractiveness of a law which would require statements of holdings and earnings before sentencing. And each person's fine could be calculated as a certain percentage of their net worth or annual income.

Just like a flat tax, or sales tax, what could be more fair or just than that?

Sound too socialistic?

How about then we just let the judge set the term of the sentence with fines and jail time as he sees fit for the person, their attitude, the likelihood of them reoffending, and of course the nature of the crime in the first place.




I don't know that it is so ludicrous. YOU might be quite surprised at the outcome were this issue put up as an initiative and voted upon by the general public.

I am quite sure the majority of people in this country would vote to allow any judge to impose jail time in cases where fines would go unnoticed by the defendant. Isn"t that what democracy is all about?

I am quite sure the majority of people in this country would vote to allow any judge to impose jail time in cases where fines would go unnoticed by the defendant. Isn"t that what democracy is all about?
=================================================================

Man, I sure do hope you're kidding!!

No, it's not kidding. I have listened to the suggestion before. If the purpose of the law is to punish and/or modify behavior, isn't it a little silly to impose a "sentence" that has little or no effect on one defendant, while having a significant impact on another? What about a fine based on percentage of income/assets? Wouldn't that be objective/blind justice?

Now, if I could just get you to apply your arguments of equality to the family law system..........I would..........jump for joy......or kiss you.......

That is.....if consistency among parties (Coors-Hilton) in the course of the law is your point.

Casey

Now I'm convinced of the idea's lunacy!!

Idaho shooter...

The basic Constitutional concepts that escape you, along with an EXTREMELY poor understanding of statutory punishment and the general concepts of crime and punishment make it nearly impossible to debate you point by point. Suffice it to say that your view of crime and punishment is born in how youd raise your kids, not in the law. Under your theories...the rich would be doing long stints in the pen for petty crimes while the poor would be paying exhorbitant fines for the same. Meanwhild the middle class would be doing a little time and paying a little money...a little slap on both hands just to make sure of the "sting" you so desire. The concepts you support are the exact reason that most states have ranges of fines and punishments so that nobody should have to give an extra pound of flesh to the state for some reason that is not relavent to their crime and criminal history.

That's because you're the classic neo-conservative/status quo guy.......

Casey

edited to add: did you notice the link I posted Bob?

seeing penny's comment about the judge having "power" over her. I look at it a different way.

The purpose of the punishment is to punish. THE ONLY way she would be punished would be to serve time in jail. House arrest is NOT punishment when you're as rich as she is. Monetary punishment? Unless it's a BILLION dollars it won't mean a thing, take away drivers liscense Yea,,,, she'll just use a choffure (sp?)

PLus the punishment was for NOT following the court mandate of the PREVIOUS misbehavior. Blowing it off if you will. (no pun intended)

It wasn't until they hauled her off FINALLY on Fri, did it REALLY sink in that she is in trouble. That's when the whining started and the tears flowed.

It was denial the whole time, it was obvious from her "show" on the red carpet before she "turned" herself in. She didn't believe it was gonna happen.

I've seen it first hand, pretty much a repeat of what my brother went through. Trust me, he wasn't rich either....

I would argue that it is a legal system that no longer represents it's society.

I'm not criticizing you Jim, but there is an increasing frustration with the legal system that is being dismissed by those on the inside of the system........think of it as illegal immigration issue 10 years ago.

Casey

The purpose of the punishment is to punish. THE ONLY way she would be punished would be to serve time in jail
=================================================================
Blammer

Agreed...Now jail her consistant with the rules and policies of the LA County jail in correlation to all other offenders with similar offenses and punishments!

Yep!

I never said anything about long stints. Just enough to get their attention and convince them that they made a mistake which is not wise to repeat. That is the punishment I have been suggesting for Ms. Hilton's third offense all along. Good Grief, the judge sentenced her to three weeks, for her second probation violation. That is no "long stint" by any stretch of anyone's imagination, except perhaps a spoiled, whiny, self aggrandizing.........




I certainly never said anything about the poor paying exorbitant fines either. I repeat, the punishment should fit the crime, the defendant's attitude, and their likelihood or reoffending.



Then the concepts I support are already part of the legal system. Cool. Perhaps my ideas are not so ludicrous after all.

I will sleep easier tonight!

A thought occurs to me.

Nobody can deny that our system of judicial punishment is rapidly failing this nation. We have so many people in prison that it has become a serious economic drain on our society.

Perhaps part of the problem is a judicial system which does not allow a judge to impose a sentence upon a first offender which is strong enough to "sting him".

Perhaps our judges need the latitude to impose a sentence for the first offense which will convince the offender that he wants to walk the straight and narrow for the rest of his life.

I bet the young man in (was it) Singapore who got caned for spray painting graffiti on the wall never made that mistake again. At least not in that nation.

Perhaps our nation would be a lot better off if our judges could take a page from the Singapore book of law.

Boy or Boy, I go offline for a day and this is what I get to read, talk about painfull. General Peter Pace has gone in to retirement, and all the news is about Ms Hilton and on this web sight something about some Norway Cod, that is either eatable or not.

Well the old saying is if you go in snow you pay the tow, with reagard to Ms. Hilton, this is the first time in her life than nobody can bail her out of a problem, Not Mom Dad or her Lawyers. The Judge didn't like getting spit on and he put the screws to her. The real question here is that this young lady, and I use that term to be polite, is not going to live to see 30 unless she get snaped out of this BS. Jail is a good place for her at this time and place, she is going to have to learn the lesson if you give the court your word, you stick to it. It could be worst, in with the general population rather than the special lock up for the way ward glitterotii.

She is 26 years old and there are KIDS that are 26 and pulling their third and forth tours in the war zone. She is just the kind on entertainment that one would expect at the local Bada Bing's. Yea I am a fan of The Soprano's. What is telling is that this thread is 5+ pages.

Seven pages on my setting. Good thing is I'm learning a lot about people on this site.
Not good or bad, but just how different minds work in different ways.
Kinda helps me sort out some on how the nation works, I may even understand some political views if this continues.

Agree 1000000% Paris should get the same amount of time on paper as any other DUI offender that violated probation by driving on a suspended license, and the jail should compute her release time the same way it does for every other like sentence and offender.

Twice, since her DUI arrest in September.

Casey

Naw, keep it simple--they're wrong and we're right

Casey

Yeah, that's what I've learned...everyone agrees on that one thing.

It would help your case if you said they're instead of their..

My son once reminded me that I'd said "The last time my ship came in, it was a boat load of Haitians." I think that I'd welcome a boat load of Haitians nowadays.



One blustery winter day in New York City, a couple of fellows who hadn't seen each other for months met on the street. One noticed the other's dark tan and asked about it.

"Got it in Miami."

"Vacation, huh?"

"No, I moved. Live there now."

"Aren't you nervous about living there, in the middle of all those Cubans?"

"Not a bit. The Cubans I know are mostly business and professional people. Nice folks."

"Well, how 'bout all those Haitians?"

"They've added a lot of good local color to Miami. Music. Food."

"I thought Miami was a combat zone. Aren't you afraid to go out much?"

"No, I go wherever I want, whenever I want. No worry."

"What do you do, down there?"

"I'm the tail gunner on a bakery truck."

Now, that right thar is funny!

My Cuban friend couldn't wait to get back to Miami to repeat it to the other cops.

I had my buddy over today and we were laughing about his ordeal, I did make some mistakes regarding his case.

He had his license suspended and then was caught not two, but four times driving, and did 120 days in lock-up, but was allowed to leave and go to work but then had to return to jail within an hour of works end. Weekends he was in all day both days.

He was pretty hard headed, but in his defense three of the times he was popped he was going to work. The cops knew his truck, and knew his situation and he made a pretty easy target. When he got smart he tried getting to work on his motorcycle, but with his size he looked like a circus bear on his old 400-4, pretty easy to spot there too.
When he was in lock-up he asked me to use his truck so it wouldn't sit too long, and I got pulled over twice.

Now Paris got popped twice to his four, but he did 120 to her three.

Appreciate your candor Barkoff. Did your buddy get no jail time on his second and third pop?

As an aside Barkoff...things start getting quite serious here in Va on the third offense as well. Normally what you will see is a DWI pop followed by a couple of DOS pops during the probationary period. You'll actually serve a minimum 10 days mandatory on a third pop here but, in Va, after any combination of 3 offenses like DWI or DOS, you are certified as an habitual offender and your license is revoked. Then, you are a pedestrian for a minimum of 3 years.

I fixed it I've been doing that a lot lately........getting to be a lazy typer I guess........

The problem is a drivers license is none of the government's business in the first place. If one endangers the public--such as drunck driving--they should pay the penalty and then go on about their business without government interference. Simply driving while one's government issued license is "revoked" is NOT endangering anybody--it's simply about government control.......

Casey

Typos �

Three natural laws of publishing:
� There will be a typo in everything that you publish (no matter how carefully you proof-read it before you publish it).
� A typo will be the first thing that you see when you read the first published copy.
� Whenever you correct a typo, you will miss or create another one.

You can guess how I know.

You're just trying to make me feel better .....honestly, I try to spell words correctly and at least write semi-comprehensible sentences--it's just that this internet forum stuff tends to make one somewhat lazy.......

Casey

I think it happened too fast, I believe the first time he was pulled over he really popped off to the cops and gave them a healthy dose; then it was on. Well they all knew him from around town, so whenever they drove by his condo and saw his truck or bike gone, they just parked and waited. I think two, three and four came within two weeks.
An example: one time he is driving down the street in his big 4X4 but this time he had one of his girlfriends driving. The back window has one of the murals on it, so when you are behind the truck you can't see into it. The cop has him pulled over and approaches the driver side window only to find his girlfriend driving. Instead of just enjoying the moment, he rubs it in the cops face; "you thought you had me didn't you? Well that's just to fu$#@ing bad isn't it?"

He is a lot smarted these days, but when we were younger what a block head. He also laughs about his stupidity now. This was a guy who was 6'4" 240 solid as a rock, who grew up taking what he wanted in four different foster homes. Quit high school and held two jobs at a time for about twenty years. Lived the life of the biggest and the strongest but it took him a while to realize that isn't how it works. What he got away with for as long as he did, is just amazing.

We all have buddies like that. Some of them don't get a much smarter though.

My guess is he made out fairly well for the 2nd and 3rd offenses and then everyone just had enough as the 4th charge rolled onto the court's docket. That and verbally bitch-slapping the Heat often is a recipe for a sch!tty day in court!!

The thing the talking heads are ignoring with the Hilton case is that she also failed to enroll in some alcohol education program.

The "deal" you cut with the state to keep from serving time is that you not drive for a certain period of time AND get into an alcohol education program. The education program is at least as if not more important to the state-rather then sitting in jail to reflect on your misdeeds, you are allowed to remain out of the slammer provided you raise your awareness of the issues associated with alcohol.

Hilton did not enroll in any program within the prescribed 60 day period. She could have probably met the requirements via private sessions with a psychiatrist (like the one who has been spending large amounts of time with her recently). But she completely blew it off (no pun intended).

Most folks I know who have been nailed with DUI have enrolled in a program or start to document their attendance at AA meetings within DAYS after getting tagged. With all the options available to Hilton, to not even offer evidence that she was or was scheduled to attend some sessions somewherew is inexcusable.

The State places a very high premium on attendance - which is trade off for staying out of jail. I think that is what really pushed the court over the edge in giving her jail time. More so than getting caught twice driving on a suspended license.

She made a deal with the court to stay out of jail. Her actions demonstrated that she had no intention of honoring the deal AT ALL. Had this happened in a jurisdiction not as croded as LA, she would have probably been given 90 or more days for flipping off the judge.

It sounds like Va's system is pretty just.

Give a guy a break on the first offense. But then give him something serious to think about if he demonstrates a determined resistance to the will of the court.

Such is the system of punishment which should be in place through out the nation.

Ken, I'm so darned proud of you I could just spit, right on the floor! An analysis of that sort needs no spittoons!

I know danged well you're a Norske, like my little brother Sam and me.

I am uninclined to view small favors these days without some further consideration of why they were given. If a favor is given, what's expected in the business place, the market?

(That trap is wide and beautiful.)

"Norske?"

Worse �

Mongrel (Scot, Welsh, English, French, and Cherokee)

My wife was a Swede. 100% pure, rock-headed, and unadulteratable.

One of our kids once said "I'm half Swede and half mongrel." Carol Anne chuckled and said "No, Honey, that's not how it works."

Ken Howell, I think you just ought to keep on doing what you think and are.

(I SEE A VIKING AXE IN YOUR PAST --- OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!)

Yep, 'way back, an ungentle soul named something like Con Chad Cheath, an ancient ancestor of my Alexander forebears.

Tell me more about that fellow.

He had good taste in axes! I like a fellow with good taste in axes. Well, usually anyway...

Penny;

I'm getting back to this one after too long. My apologies.

Here's the post that you put up that I replied to:



Your position was that the only reason that Hilton received the sentence, and the requirement to actually serve it in jail, was because the judge was on a power trip and was vindictive against her because of her status.

I find that to be complete BS.

Her sentence was the mandatory sentence required by the law. She had been arrested and convicted of multiple DUIs and had failed (miserably) in the alternative sentences and probation offered to her in the earlier instances.

The judge handed down the sentence as required by statute and sentencing guidelines. That sentence would have been (and would have been REQUIRED to have been) EXACTLY the same regardless of whether the defendant was Paris Hilton or Ted Bundy or you or I.

There was no discretion permissible in the sentence; and the reason for no discretion permissible in these sentences is actually to avoid the preferential treatment (pro or con) that you accuse the judge of using in this case. He could no more have let her off on "home arrest" or another probation sentence than he could have you or I, or than he could have stuck her with a more severe sentence.

The problem with her "second sentence" (which it was not) was that the local sheriff bowed to political and financial pressure and released her against court orders from the jail. THAT was preferential treatment, and likely illegal. The judge rescinded that erroneous order of the sheriff and required the sentence to be carried out in accord with the laws of the PRK. That is the job of the judge, like it or not, and there's no preferential treatment in requiring that the laws be upheld and sentences be meted out fairly regardless of the status, power, or wealth of the guilty.

You found fault with the manner in which the sentence was carried out and placed that blame on the judge.

Not once have (or had you, up to that post) agreed that Hilton was found guilty of multiple DUIs, that she was sentenced in accordance with the laws of the PRK, and that the ONLY reason that this is even an issue is because her spoiled, pampered, self-absorbed self is ALWAYS in front of the cameras to get our attention... just like this.

You never said that she should not serve her sentence. But, you never said that she should, or that she got the sentence based upon her guilt. You put the responsibility and the guilt on the judge, not on Hilton.

For me, that's what got me.

Perhaps it's just the difference between our experiences with the justice system. You work with the convicted, and you find ways and means to believe in them the good that you want to seek and find, and often their versions of what happened, why, and why it was wrong.

I worked with the accused, and defended them. I had to find the reasons that the law was the way that it was, and try to find avenues to differentiate what the client did from what was the rule. What I found, most often, was that the client was actually guilty, but would say or do anything to avoid the realization, and certainly the punishment, of that guilt.

You oughta know that this isn't a personal problem that I have with you. Far from it, and if it came across or was left hanging that way, then you have my apologies again.

VA,

The only info I could find was 'ol Paris pleaded guilty to one DUI, but was busted twice since September for driving while under suspension??

Casey

Being busted under suspension is exactly it. That's a second and third offense while under probation. Such violations are considered prima facie evidence of guilt and are given probation violations.

Those get her the mandatory 45 days in the county jail.

She oughta be considering herself damned lucky. If she'd gotten busted in VA, the second and third would have gotten an expedited hearing in most jurisdictions, she'd have been in the county jail pending resolution of those cases, and a third offense DUI is a lifetime revocation of your license AND 12 months in prison.

Oh, man, is that ever the truth!!!

Hi, VA. Thanks for responding to this.

That was not the impression I meant to convey; I apologize if I wasn't clear. Certainly she deserves some sort of sentence, given that she broke her probation twice (I believe). I also think it will do her some good (personally) to serve the sentence.

What I couldn't understand was why the judge sentenced her to X number of days in jail, then after she was told she could go home with an ankle bracelet, seemed to add to the sentence (X + more days) when she returned.

Perhaps that is not what happened, and I don't understand all the details of the law, mandatory sentencing, etc. But that is what I was referring to.


Yes, because I didn't understand why, when she was returned to jail, she had to serve more days there than originally mandated. I still don't.


I thought that it was agreed by everyone that she was guilty of multiple DUIs (does the obvious have to be stated?). I do believe that I read somewhere that this last time, however, she was not charged with a DUI, just a probation violation (driving without a license). What I read could be wrong.


Not at all. VA, I think you're perhaps making assumptions about me that aren't accurate, or reading things in between the lines that aren't there. Just because I do prison ministry, please don't think that I believe that people shouldn't serve their sentences. One thing has absolutely nothing to do with the other. I have said time and again that I do NOT advocate letting people off the hook for what they've done. Decisions and actions have consequences, and people need to realize that. If it means serving jail or prison time, so be it. There are a number of inmates that I have gotten to know, that I like, that I have become friends with... but I believe that each of them is in the right place and should stay there for the duration of his/her sentence. I hope that makes things clear. And Paris Hilton is in the same category (although I certainly don't know her personally).


I take every inmate's version of "their story" with a grain of salt (when they tell it to me... often they don't). As the saying goes, all jails are filled with innocent people. I know that's not accurate. But whether they are guilty or not is irrelevent to me and what I am there for. I have never said to anyone, "Oh, you poor thing!" Just the opposite... I frequently ask them, "What are you going to do differently when you get out, so that you don't wind up back here again?"


Thanks for explaining. Your message blindsided me, and I couldn't for the life of me figure out what I had said that made you post that.

I personally think DUI laws should be tougher. People who drive when they've been drinking potentially endanger me and my family members every time we're out. I don't have any tolerance for that.

Penny

No blindsiding intended.

To be honest, looking back at my original reply, I can guess I was probably a bit "grumpy" that evening.

That's good. (Well, not... but you know what I mean. ) I admire and respect you too much to not care if you're upset with me. I'm glad that you weren't.

Penny

You've yet to upset me; and I hope that trend continues. And, let me know when I piss you off.... I'll try....

It's almost always an attitude that pizzes me off, not the fact that someone holds a contrary opinion or point of view. And your attitude is always wonderful... a real southern gentleman.


Reading back over my last post, I see that I was flustered enough that I split an infinitive! If Ken H. reads this, he'll understand my consternation...

Penny

Oh geeze, don't tell me we're headed for a group hug.

You can be included! It's a pleasant experience!



There! That wasn't so bad, was it?

Penny

Hey, who tried to pinch my.......................

� an ancient superstition, not a grammatical error �

In Latin, the infinitive is a form of one word � facere, for example. In English, although facere translates to make, the infinitive is only make � unsplittable. To is not part of an English infinitive.

As long as there's been an English language, to boldly go has been a linguistically, grammatically legitimate construction.

In the 1700s, when human learning was impressed with discoveries of order in the universe, and learned men were familiar with the neatness of classical Latin (a contrived artificial language), the perceived lack of similar order in English (an Indo-European, not Romance, language) was seen as deterioration from a forgotten, pure original grammar, so order-minded "authorities" sought to restore to English an orderliness that it'd never had. Their model of grammatical purity was Latin. They didn't know that Latin and English are entirely, fundamentally different kinds of language with legitimately different grammars.

Outlawing "splitting an infinitive" is just one example of their imposed "rules" that never were congenital to English. The "double negative" and "ending a sentence with a preposition" are also examples of these artificial proscriptions with no legitimate linguistic foundation. Both are legitimate English grammar.

Infinitive means independent of any sense of time. An infinitive is a word that's independent of tense � no past, no present, no future sense. In English, make is the infinitive, not the erroneously Latin-inspired to make.

To occasionally "split an infinitive" is no crime. Artificially to contrive to avoid splitting an infinitive is no virtue. (Besides, as Bernstein remarked about another grammatical shibboleth, it sounds as Hell.)

I never studied Latin, so I am the more ignorant because of it. But the "double negative" accepted by English because of Latin makes me wonder... the other Romance Languages (at least the ones I have studied -- French, Spanish, and Italian) have no problem with a double, triple, or even quadruple negative. In fact, it HAS to be that way to be grammatically correct. That has always seemed more logical to me than English. If it's negative, it's negative all the way through. Not partially negative, with the other elements flipped to affirmative as in English.

With that, I'm not doing nothing for no one no more no where. That's five... I might be able to come up with more if I put my mind to it.

Penny

Someone correctly said of the double negative that the more times you say "no," the more you mean "no."

The double negative became a shibboleth in English with the erroneously imposed idea that the language should be mathematically precise � that the rules of math should also apply to the language.

The misuse of logic in behalf of logic slays me.

This conversation had gotten too deep for my ignorant mind (Dr. Howell please play nice)

I promise!

I'm not never gonna do nothing for nobody no more, nowhere, no way, no time, no kiddin'.

"Eight negatives equal four positives?" No way, not in no English that I ever knew, no way, no sir!



I love the preschooler's five terminal prepositions � completely valid English grammar � when he challenged his father for bringing the wrong book upstairs for a bed-time reading:

"What did you bring that book that I don't want to be read-to out of up for?

I manage to have lutefisk a couple times a year. it is really good stuff and I strongly advise all of you to give it a try.


Bullwnkl.

The patter of a minion.

OMG,, I am reminded of my High School English teacher. What a sight, short red hair, tall, skinny and uglier than a Woodchuck and making a dash between classes for a cigarette in the Teachers lounge. Just a frightening thought, one I had tried to forget. I could never figure why she had her desk at the back of the room and we all faced away from her desk. She was probably hitting on candy and didn't want us to see.

How does a bald male nonsmoker remind you of her? It's the "ugly," right?

curious

Nothing to do with anything other than the corrections to the English language. Mrs. (no name) was one that you could not say a sentance without some correction of what you had said. Almost sounds like my Mother too. It was just a flash back to my youth. Of course, I am thankful for the corrections today.

damn! I didn't expect a thread on Paris Hilton to go over my head!

Time to make something clear, I guess �

� If a ton of Ex Lax wouldn't make you give a dump for correct spelling, the right word, or grammar, I have absolutely no impulse to shape you up.

� If you indicate a curiosity about any point of correct spelling, word choice, or proper grammar, I'm always ready to help if I can.

� If you show a desire to have a spelling, diction, or grammar question resolved, I'm eager to help.

� If a certain error is hilarious or even just amusing, I may comment on it with no intent to shape anybody up or to make anybody look like a fool.

OK?

Didn't you see the ?

That post is to EVERYONE, not just you.

See, I told you I was way too ignorant for this thread.

� but not too stupid, obviously!