Paris Hilton goes back to jail

Posted by: Diccus62 on 09 June 2007

Fascinating case. I think going to jail was way over the top in the first place and now it has turned into a charade. Celebrity Court cases in America - is it justice? Even with the Hilton millions she can't get free.

I think she is a deeply disturbed young woman. Hey money don't make you happy Winker

Sorry if this is a bit 'Big Brotherish'

Back to the Pen

Diccus
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by Rasher
I suppose anyone who is a "career celebrity" has to be unhealthily self-obsessed and it's certain to lead to psychiatric problems, if the career itself isn't a result of that in the first place.
I really wish people would stop being impressed by this "celebrity" crap and maybe these poor shallow creatures would find something more worthwhile to do with their lives. I think the final realisation that it's all worthless is what puts these people over the edge in the end.
I hope she works it all out before she destroys herself. I'm sure she isn't a bad person. She just needs to find something constructive to do with her life in order that she can feel fulfilled.
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by Colin Lorenson
Poor little rich kids eh. if not for her money she'd be trailer trash.

No sympathy, and even less regard for the dickheads that follow this nonentity and her ilk.

Sounds harsh I know, but fame for fames sake pisses me off when there are people with real talent out there who can't get a break.
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by Deane F
There's an interesting little legal fracas going on over jurisdiction now, though. The Sheriff's Dept is claiming that once the Judge has handed down the sentence then he has no jurisdiction over the administration of that sentence.
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by scottyhammer
only in america........ Roll Eyes
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by BigH47
Usual American attitude "you can't put me in jail, I'm rich"
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by ewemon
Possibly the best way would have to been to fine her squillions of dollars and hand it out to the poorer areas in LA.

But thought it was a real joke to release her so soon after getting put in the slammer in the first place. Smacked of a deal having been done before she was locked up.

This may teach her a painful lesson that no one should be above the law.
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by Deane F
quote:
Originally posted by ewemon:
Possibly the best way would have to been to fine her squillions of dollars and hand it out to the poorer areas in LA...

...This may teach her a painful lesson that no one should be above the law.


Justice is (or ought to be) blind. That is, blind to social status and/or wealth.

For example, if an offence is punishable by a $500 fine and both a poor man and a rich man are convicted of that offence and handed the same sentence, many people would think that the $500 fine is no real punishment for the rich man and (perhaps) an excessive punishment for the poor man. But really, the point is that $500 buys the same amount for both men.

So, if Paris Hilton is fined squillions of dollars rather than facing the same punishment as anybody else - then I believe that would teach her that she is above the law.

I think this is the position the Judge is taking, and rightly so in my opinion.
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by imosdad
In many ways it's a shame she didn't get life. The governor could then have said 'At least we'll always have Paris'
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by Rasher
In her eyes she's just doing what she has been brought up to believe she can do. To use her as a whipping boy (okay, girl) for personal angst against all the rich isn't exactly fair. She doesn't understand any other way.
Poor little rich girl? Well...yes, maybe she is!
Posted on: 09 June 2007 by ewemon
My mother would have said I blame the parents.
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by Diccus62
quote:
Originally posted by ewemon:
My mother would have said I blame the parents.


I think that is one of the fairest quotes of all time.

Winker
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by Tarquin Maynard - Portly
Why is she famous?
What has she done?
What is she for?
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by BigH47
She is famous for being famous. That's all you need to be these days like TPT.
Oh and her parents are hyper rich.
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by Mick P
Mike

She will inherit a sizeable chunk of the Hilton Hotel chain which gives her influence and quite a few guys would like to copulate with her.

Put the two together and she is news material.

Regards

Mick
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by Bob McC
From what's available to download Mick quite a few already have!
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by NaimDropper
She was sent to jail for violating her probation on a drunk driving charge.
Two screw ups for on the same crime. She should be in jail and forced to tough it out through her anxiety attacks or whatever other "medical condition" she has. The jail's clinic can take care of her like they do anyone else.
Seems celebs get to walk or suffer extra punishment (a la Martha Stewart). This is a reasonable punishment for violating a clear order.
As to the home incarceration, it smells of a payoff to the sheriff. Time will tell.
As to celeb status, she is American Royalty like a lot of others. Don't care for that type myself.
David
Posted on: 10 June 2007 by fred simon

Go Away, Paris Hilton


Posted on: 11 June 2007 by MichaelC
Does the Youtube clip sum up the sentiment in the USA? How is her case being reported in the USA?
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by fidelio
quote:
Originally posted by Deane F:
There's an interesting little legal fracas going on over jurisdiction now, though. The Sheriff's Dept is claiming that once the Judge has handed down the sentence then he has no jurisdiction over the administration of that sentence.


deane, yes, and her lawyers have picked up on that and filed some kind of a writ or emergency motion. so, may be interesting only from the technolegal pov, but she may stay home w/ the anklet ...
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by worm
quote:
Justice is (or ought to be) blind. That is, blind to social status and/or wealth.

For example, if an offence is punishable by a $500 fine and both a poor man and a rich man are convicted of that offence and handed the same sentence, many people would think that the $500 fine is no real punishment for the rich man and (perhaps) an excessive punishment for the poor man. But really, the point is that $500 buys the same amount for both men.

So, if Paris Hilton is fined squillions of dollars rather than facing the same punishment as anybody else - then I believe that would teach her that she is above the law.

I think this is the position the Judge is taking, and rightly so in my opinion.



I err on the other side of this argument.

$500 to someone who earns $12,000 means something very different than $500 to someone who earns $120,000.

Could there be an argument that is based on a % of income - or let's have some real fun - how about a % of assets?
Cheers

worm
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by Rasher
quote:
Originally posted by worm:
quote:
Justice is (or ought to be) blind.


I err on the other side of this argument.
....- or let's have some real fun - how about a % of assets?
worm


Then you're not talking about justice, you're talking about punishing the rich.
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by worm
..only the guilty ones Winker

but seriously $500 to someone can mean whether they feed the family - to another person it is a bottle of wine. These are not the some punishments.

worm
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by Phil Cork
I think you'll find that court imposed fines are means tested, and one has to fill in a statement of earnings prior to appearance...

phil
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by Rasher
quote:
but seriously $500 to someone can mean whether they feed the family - to another person it is a bottle of wine.


True, but I've thought about this and the work I do; do I charge my time at a cheaper rate to people who are struggling financially? I have to say no, because it isn't fair, but I suspect that in reality I do ever so slightly, and if I like the people.
If everything cost a proportion of your wealth there would be no point in having money, so you shouldn't apply that philosophy to anything - even fines.
The question should really be whether these people (footballers especially) should have this amount of money in the first place - but that of course is an entirely different argument.
Posted on: 11 June 2007 by worm
Rasher

Without knowing what you do I guess that people have an element of choice in whether they decide to use your services. They can choose whether they want (or can afford) to. I am not proposing differentially priced goods and services in any way.

But a fine is different - I guess it both acts as a deterrant and a punishment. To a very high earner it may do neither if it is flat rated and therefore insignificant to their overall income.

As Phil has highlighted it is my understanding that a degree of this already exists.

Cheers

worm