Originally posted by TimeViewer She was released from jail for health reasons. Overcrowding was not the reason given. This is why the Sheriff was subjected to contempt of court charges. In an overcrowding situation prisoners are transferred between various county jails to meet capacity restrictions. You seem to feel release from jail for overcrowding purposes is acceptable in our society. It is not, taxpayer's like you whine about the costs, whine when they become victims, but fail to put up the tax dollars to take correction action to address the problem. I read the article and yes it did say that the Sheriff released her due to overcrowding, try reading the damn thing yourself Okay, I will explain it to you one final time. First Paris Hilton was not sent to prison, she was sent to jail. There is a difference, and prison overcrowding and jail overcrowding are not the same. Second, when a jail becomes overcrowded the Sheriff will contact other local counties/jails and attempt to negotiate space. Third, if the Sheriif cannot negotiate space in jails elsewhere in the state, he will consider release of non-violent prisoners. In doing so the conduct of the prisoner and the extent of their sentence is considered. So, a prisoner that has served a substantial portion of their sentence, exhibits good conduct, and was incarcerated for a nonviolent crime will be released. In this instance, Paris Hilton was the ONLY prisoner granted early release for jail overcrowding at that time. She had served 3 days of a 24 day sentence, less than 10 percent. Any other non-violent inmate that had served more than 10% of their sentence procedurally had priority over Paris Hilton for early release. That is why the Sheriff was held in contempt of court, the excuse that there was no room for her in the jail and that she should be released early was just so far out of line and inaccordance with jail procedures. Sheriffs do not get held in contempt if they properly follow administrative procedures. Your truth may be jealousy and sex, my truth, and the truth of many others, is they she exhibits contempt for the criminal justice system, turning it into a mockery, because she believes she is above the laws of our society. Remember when Leona Helmsley said "only the little people pay taxes". She went to jail because she exhibited contempt for the justice system, indicating that her behaviour was not modifiable. Martha Stewert went to jail for perjury, lying to law enforcement officials. Telling the truth is a fundamental pillar of our criminal justice system, if there is no expectation that a person will tell the truth before a grand jury, our entire criminal justice system stands in jeopardy. Truth is self evident and it's very self evident in this string from the postings that it is nothing more than childish gloating I have stated my rational for my belief several times. If you read it carefully you should be able to determine that there are fundamental underlying reasons for my arguement, yet you seem bent on classifying it still "childish gloating". Each and every reply of mine to you has been on an adult level, and contained reasons. Your replies consistenly resort to name calling, swearing ("try reading the damn thing") and do not provide any backup rational for your position. It is pointless to argue with you, because you are the one incapable of an adult to adult conversation. The judge did his job properly. The OJ verdict was not guilty, you may wish to send a man to prison for murder following a not guilty verdict, but it is totally inappropriate. Paris did not plea not guilty, she acknowledged DUI. Obviously you are the one incapable of objective analysis of the facts in this case, with little understanding of the inner workings of the criminal justice system. Yes, I am pleased, as are many others, that justice was served in this case. Crying for her mother in the police car is another inappropriate example of not acknowledging and atoning for her DUI. She is still trying to avoid responsibility for her actions. I'd have to say that you're the one incapable of being objective since you're so dead set on gloating on a girl crying in the car, how utterly pathetic, like I said grow the hell up schmuck You're not interested in justice at all just in serving some petty inner need to pick on someone you so obviously dislike, what is it does she remind you of some girl who blew you off? or maybe every girl who didn't like you. You're just as pathetic as every other schmuck here posting their little gloating, actually you're even worse because at least most of them are not trying to hide behind a false air of impartiality. Once again, in the above paragraph, you do not represent any logical arguements for your position. Instead, you resort to classifying me as "gloating on a girl crying", calling me "schmuck", "indicating "she remind you of some girl who blew you off", "or maybe every girl who didn't like you". You resort to name calling "You're just as pathetic" and calling my arguements a "false air of impartiality". I notice that you failed to address my point that the OJ verdict was not guilty, which is why he is not incarcerated. You seem to indicate in your response that you feel it is perfectly acceptable for OJ to be incarerated as a murderer even though the jury found hime not guilty. Why do we have trials if we are not going to abide by the jury verdict? Why do we have laws if we are not going to hold certain people accountable? I will not be responding to any of your future comments, and allow those that read this thread, your statements and my statements, to judge for themself which of us responds as the adult, and which of us responds as the child. To further carry on this discussion with you is pointless.
This is just a case of the legal system trying to make a point, instead of actually working. They did the same thing with Martha Stewart and her horrible insider trading.
I wish they would spend our tax dollars and the courts' valuable time actually convicting real criminals of real crimes. Also with all of the overcrowding in the prisons, maybe they shouldn't be using up jail cells to hold people that have no business being in jail.
See the thing is that Paris was famous and rich. People that aren't rich or famous hate people that are. Would you guys be all in a fuss if cousin johnny was consistently let out of prison by his cousin the town sheriff in a small town of 30 people in Montana? Nope. No one would care. No one would be calling for the injustice to be corrected. Heck that was half of what the Dukes of Hazzard TV show was about. Daisy always getting them out of jail early. So honestly America has no problem with people who commit small crimes and who have not hurt anyone getting little to (in most cases) no jail time. And most of American has no problem with the "you scratch my back, I scratch yours" system. In the end it all comes back to these people being Rich and Famous.
And all of your examples are flawed. Rich and Famous socialites are different from Rock stars, movies stars, or athletes. People don't want to see their favorite actor, rocker, or athlete go to jail. They do want to see that rich "snob" get hurt though. That is why people (especially people who are born into richness) who get rich from other means always end up getting the book thrown at them more, then their movie, rocker, athlete counterparts.
And for the guy who didn't know who Warren Buffet is look him up. He is only the 2nd or 3rd richest man in the world. He is considered one of the greatest investors in history, he started with absolutely nothing and got some backing from friends, neighbors, family and built a vast fortune in his stock Berkshire Hathaway. He is also going to be one of the largest philanthropists(sp?) ever in history. He stated he will be giving away his 50+ billion dollar fortune to various charities, and has already started doing so by donating to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
This is so wrong. People do not hate Paris Hilton because she is rich, they hate her because she continually demonstartes an arrogant contempt for all things around her that she feels are beneath her. I say things, because she treats people as things.
People acted the same way to Martha Stewart and she doesn't act arrogant or show contempt for all things around her.
In the Martha Stewert case she did exhibit arrogance and contempt as well as total disregard for the justice system. Martha Stewert lied to a federal grand jury investigating SEC charges into insider trading. Same with Scooter Libby, he was not convicted for outing Valerie Plame, he was convicted of obstruction of justice. Once again, it is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system that people tell the truth, if they don't the system will be reduced to unworkabel anarchy and chaos.
I personally was involved with two federal trials after the Martha Stewert case. Prior to her jury verdict several witnesses lied to the investigators. They also lied to the prosecutors, and lied to the defence. Each and everyone involved could look at the testimony, review the evidence, and determine for themselves that these witnesses were lying. But proving the witnesses are lying is not what the trial is about, it was about proving the accused were either guilty, or not guilty. The witnesses were put up before a Federal Grand Jury (after the Martha Stewert decision), reminded of the penalty for perjury, and suddenly found God and changed their story before the grand jury. The Martha Stewert decision to those not involved in the criminal justice system may have seemed trivial. To those involved, it was an important decision/example.
Now, some of you may respond, "what about Bill Clinton, he lied and wasn't prosecuted AFTER his presidency" (A sitting president does not get prosecuted). Please note that, had it been a clear cut instance of perjury, the Bush administration/John Ashcroft Attorney General had up to three years to recommend prosecution. The problem in this case was that it was not clear cut, Clinton stated that he considered sexual relations to be only the act of intercourse between a man and a woman. He did not consider oral sex as sexual relations. Though many may feel this a weak arguement, the US Justice Department had to consider whether people may have different definitions of what does, and does not, constitute sexual relations. Had Bill Clinton been asked specifically about oral sex, and he answered no, he should have been charged with perjury by the Ashcroft Justice Department. Such a precedent, as allowing a sitting US President to lie under oath, would not have been a good thing.
Second, one of the major causes of highway deaths in the United States is driving under the influence. You seem to think DUI is not serious, not a crime in which anyone gets hurt. You are precisely the type of person that MADD is trying to educate regarding the seriousneess of DUI. This is not a "boys will be boys" crime. People die of it. If Paris Hilton was a poor slob of a factory worker the criminal justice system would behave the same, attempt to achieve behaviour modification so she would willingly stop being a DUI menace to the other drivers on the roads. The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to blindly punish, it is to achieve behaviour modification. DUI incidents can be prevented, yet you seem to think it appropriate that the police apply their time to something else, something you deem more important. If Johnny was consistently let out of jail for DUI by his cousin in Montana, there would be a serious problem with the criminal justice system, as Johnny would never realize that DUI and endangering other drivers on the road is not appropriate. And when Johnny killed someone, do we let him out so he can do it again?
Iceland has just a system. DUIs are taken care of by a small fine. Heck all crimes in Iceland are pretty much taken care of by fines and guess what they are the happiest people in the world. They have the least crime in the world. You can leave your baby in the stroller outside of a store and not have to worry about people stealing the child. Heck if a crime is committed you get out of prison for holidays and weekends.
I am glad that this works for Iceland, however, the number of fatalities which occur annually in the US as a result of DUI would not appear conducive to this type of a system. This is a decision made by a society, and this debate regarding how US society deals with DUI should probably be discussed in another thread.
People do not hate people because they are rich. They hate people based on the way they act. Try not being rich and walk around being an asshole. Try randomly treating other people as subhuman hubris. Walk up and fondle any woman yoi see on the street. You will find people hate you, and are glad to see the criminal justice system give you what you have coming. An asshole is an asshole, whether they are rich or not.
Have you ever met Paris Hilton? I seriously doubt you have. So you are basing your opinion on no factual data. You think she isn't a nice person and hate her for it, but you have never had a conversation with the woman. So you are seriously biased in the conversation.
No, I have never met Paris Hilton. I base my opinion in what I observe and multiple reading sources, as well as evaluating opinions of multiple others. Look, when you sit down to figure out who you are going to vote for as President of the US, you watch the candidates, listen to their positions, read up on their background, and have discussions with others, to form your opinion. From this opinion you will also determine the character of the person you wish to vote for. Paris Hilton is not exactly hard to find in the media, and her actions are well documented. I base my opinion on these factors, and I am allowed to state whether I like or dislike her ATTITUDE. That is what my entire threads are about her ATTITUDE as indicated by her actions. Frankly, there is no doubt in my mind that she doesn't have the slightest idea how her actions are interpreted by society, otherwise, you would see her "handler" advising her to modyify her behaviour in a manner similiar to the of Mel Gibson, or Martha Stewert. Had she publically acknowledged DUI, made her apologies, admitted responsibility, accepted the punishment the public would have alot different attitude toward her. After Martha Stewert was found guilty of perjury, she stepped up, served her time, and came out much stronger in the public eye than if she had carried on like Paris Hilton. Each of these two public personalities made a mistake, it is how they dealt with the mistake that sets them apart, and leads to public scorn and ridicule. Look at the Kennedy that was stopped for DUI in Washington DC sometime back, his first response was that he was on his way to a 2 AM session of Congress. The Kennedy handlers sure nixed this fast, and addressed the situation by putting him in rehab. This is an acknowldgement of wrong doing, and shows contrition by addressing the problem through rehab. Whether the rahab works or not depends on future occurance. For example, one can wonder about Lindsay Lohan's acknowledgement of her problem and acts of contrition when she is continually in and out of trouble/rehab.
If you have the priviledge, and yes it is a priviledge, to give up some of your time and serve on a jury, you will be asked to form an opinion on another person(s) that you do not personally know based on their actions. There is nothing wrong, for example, in judging whether a person's intent was to commit a crime. None of the jurors in the OJ Simpson case, or the Martha Stewert case, knew them, yet they were asked to determine whether this, based on a set of controlled facts given, displayed a conduct that was acceptable in our society. In forming that opinion, both the prosecution and the defence know that the potential jurors have been subjected to some form of media influence, and ask them to set that aside to concentrate sole on the set of controlled facts presentes. The difference between this, and the political selection process discussed above, is that as a voter you have no controlled set of facts, you must apply your own intelligence and experience, and form an opinion yourself. If we only voted for politicians we knew personally, and restrained from forming an opinion on them based on our observations of the actions and statements, elections could be over if only several hundred people voting. That's not how it works, which is why it is acceptable to form opinions on others that you do not know based on their actions, both observed and researched.
The arguement that any opinion I form of Paris Hilton based on her actions is biased ignores that which I have stated above. People can form opinions of others, and, those opinions are not biased if they are based on objective evaluation of conduct in the Paris Hilton case.
People do not hate Warren Bufet. He is rich. He has also done all those things that you say. He is not an arrogant asshole who holds things he believes beneath him, like people and the justice system, in contempt. He isnot an athlete, rock star, or movie star. By your logic, we should hate him and want to see him in jail because he is a socialite. But we don't. Why, because he knows how to conduct himself properly in society. On the other hand, OJ, and a Carolina Panthers player, for example were charged with murder. Michael jackson was charged with child molestation. Whether they are convicted, or acquitted, is based on the merits of the case. It is not up to the justice system to say, "No, we won't charge this person because their fans would not like to see them in jail". That, would be an injustice.
Warren Buffet is not a socialite, neither is bill Gates, neither is Oprah, neither is Stephen Spielberg, etc etc. They are people that are admired because they came from nothing and built up their fortune. On the other hand the vast majority of the population hates Socialites for no reason other then jealousy that the person was born into wealth.
I agree, Warren Buffet is not a socialite. But I was refuting an arguement that was presented by another poster. His arguement was that we hate socialites and will prosecute them because of their wealth, but will not prosecute rock stars, movie stars, or athletes because nobody wants to see their favorites in jail. I was awaiting a logical return arguement which that poster not able to provide. I am glad you did pick up the point however, as it allows me to make my point. There are more people out there other than socialites, rock stars, movie stars, and athletes that comprise the rich. For example, Diamler Chrysler CEO Dieter Zietsche's wife was charged with providing alcohol to minors at a party on his estate. I consider her to be one of the rich, I have never met her, and I don't hate her. She dealt with the accusation by acknowledgeing that yes, she had provide alcohol to minors, it was a common thing to do in Germany, and that, in her opinion, it was in a moderate amount and under adult supervision. She received a small fine, was told that is not appropriate, and went on her way. Nobody called her a "rich bitch socialite that ought to serve time", nobody gloated, the national media did not pick up on it, all becuase she handled it in a appropriate, adult manner. This is my point with Paris Hilton, she is considered an adult by our society, and consistently fails to act like one. This is why the majority of people hate her, she acts arrogant, disdains that she feels beneath her, and makes a mockery of the norms of our society.
"I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine". Where did you get your criminal justice degree from, Mexico? You think Americans willingly accept a two tiered system of justice based on that?
You are so wrong in your understanding of what the judge was trying to achieve. He was actually doing his job, exactly as it is designed.
No he wasn't. He was trying to make a point. Otherwise he would of put her in a treatment facility since she has an obvious problem with alcohol usage.
I'll repeat what I said in a form that you cannot report
First off, since someone obviously can't read simple english I'll repeat what I've said all along
::Yells in your ear::
YES PARIS IS GUILTY
YES SHE DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED
I HAVE NEVER STATED OTHERWISE
::Puts his ear to yours and listens to the echo::
You guys want to keep repeating the list of crimes and claiming to know laws, if you really had a clue about laws you would know that laws differ in every state, in every county, and in every city, what may be true in one is not always the same in another unless it's a federal crime, so much for your pseudo claims to being knowledgeable in the law. It also shows that not one of you who have responded that way have bothered to read.
You keep repeating those lists and ignoring what I've said all along, attacking me only because I'm not part of your little mob mentality. I've never said one nice thing about the girl, yet I've had claims that I'm "infatuated". I've never disputed guilt or punishment yet you repeat the same lists in the same brain dead manner. You try and claim maturity for yourselves and that you are only seeking justice in a thread that is full of nothing but gloating and photos of a girl crying with captions like "Justice never looked so sweet", yeah real just and real mature.
What I do dispute is the mob mentality of gloating and kicking someone who cannot defend their self here, if you want to try and claim maturity you've got a long long way to go yourself, and I dispute the right of a judge who raves like an obvious maniac to sit on the bench, a judge is suppose to be fair and impartial, not a raving lunatic out to make a name for himself nor a person who wants to make an example of one single person, law is suppose to be applied the same to all, not just to one while others do the same.
The perception of the law to be unbiased is critical for the cohesion of society.
A fair and unbiased courthouse that gets burnt down by an angry mob, is a total failure.
Paris might be getting a stiffer punishment than you or I would in the same circumstance, but it is important to the people of America to see that she isn't getting a lighter one.
If you are a public figure, you are placing yourself up for this. Fame wasn't forced on her, she chose it and has pursued it. Take the good with the bad I reckon.
baff I'm not even arguing about the length of her sentence, here again someone reads and only hears what they want to, again it's the "mob mentality" the "oh you're not one of us" so you come back with the same type of response. Something that has nothing to do with the words written above you, did you see the little "she deserves to be punished"?
A court is not suppose to be run like a circus, nor is anybody suppose to be singled out as an example, not in American law, the laws are suppose to be delivered equally. If anyone in this forum really was concerned about justice they would be asking "why isn't every drunk driver treated like this?" instead of just gloating over one crying girl. If every drunk driver did get treated like this we'd have a lot less drunks who actually are killing people, that would be justice. To make an example of one but let the others go is a mockery, and as far from what our laws are suppose to do as you can get.
I've known people, some of them friends and family, who have been killed by drunk drivers, even had one killed right in front of me, said goodbye to his girlfriend, went to cross the street to his car and was dead before he got half way across. Laws and harsh punishment are needed but not just to one singled out little airhead, they should apply to everyone.
In my opinion this judge just wanted to be in the news, to have his 15 minutes of fame for being the one who finally put her where she belongs, this doesn't mean she should be set free but it does mean that the judicial system needs to be looked at, and laws need to be applied the same to anyone, especially when they endanger the lives of others.
Let's see, round about 10 years ago, I was pulled over for not having plates on my car. I happened to be driving under suspension at the time. I also had a display knife in my car at the time, which I informed the officer of. I was arrested on the spot, and taken to jail, where I sat for about 36 hours before appearing before a judge, who refused my request to be released under my own recognizance, despite having no criminal record, and set my bail at $5000. It would have lowered at $100 a day while I sat in jail for 50 days, before even going to trial, had a relative not been there to nab my court appointed lawyer to speak to the judge.
I copped a plea to DUS, and carrying a concealed weapon(which I still think was bullshit, but whatever), paid $150 fine, and was put on 120 days of administrative probation, during which time I was required to get my license reinstated, which I did.
If I'd had a DUI, skipped court appointed treatment, then gotten busted not once, but twice for DUS, my ass would be in a sling. As it was, I watched a guy get 120 days for 2nd offense DUS while I was waiting to go before the judge.
Frankly, she should be glad she only got 45 days in jail considering what she could have ended up with.
baff I'm not even arguing about the length of her sentence, here again someone reads and only hears what they want to,
When all of us responds to you and after every response your retort is "here again someone misunderstands me" that usually means you are not writing your posts down correctly.
Think it out first. Write it on paper first and then tell us how you truly feel. Remember, every forum post is likened to the final proof of a paper.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
Enigma you are a perfect example of what I mean by mindless mob mentality, not one of your silly little posts has had an ounce of intelligence in them, you chop up something, take it the way you want to and still go on and on with the same nonsense every time no matter what I say, then when I rub your little face in it you say you're not going to respond any more, then you come back with something with even less intelligence than the last time. You obviously have some kind of sexual infatuation issues yourself, since that seems to be the only point your mind can link to. I seriously doubt you're the age you posted, you seem to be more like 11 than 32, maybe you just never developed and got stuck with a 7th grade mentality, either way it doesn't matter to me, yap away you make the rest of the world look smarter by comparison. I know I'm the minority in this, and I'm glad for that, being one of the masses doesn't make a person intelligent or right, and you're definitely the poster boy for what it does make them. Oh and my posts are perfectly clear, at least for those that actually take the time to read them instead of just glancing at, picking out a word or two and reacting. Some people actually do that you know. Or maybe you don't.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
baff I'm not even arguing about the length of her sentence, here again someone reads and only hears what they want to, again it's the "mob mentality" the "oh you're not one of us" so you come back with the same type of response. Something that has nothing to do with the words written above you, did you see the little "she deserves to be punished"? A court is not suppose to be run like a circus, nor is anybody suppose to be singled out as an example, not in American law, the laws are suppose to be delivered equally. If anyone in this forum really was concerned about justice they would be asking "why isn't every drunk driver treated like this?" instead of just gloating over one crying girl. If every drunk driver did get treated like this we'd have a lot less drunks who actually are killing people, that would be justice. To make an example of one but let the others go is a mockery, and as far from what our laws are suppose to do as you can get. I've known people, some of them friends and family, who have been killed by drunk drivers, even had one killed right in front of me, said goodbye to his girlfriend, went to cross the street to his car and was dead before he got half way across. Laws and harsh punishment are needed but not just to one singled out little airhead, they should apply to everyone. In my opinion this judge just wanted to be in the news, to have his 15 minutes of fame for being the one who finally put her where she belongs, this doesn't mean she should be set free but it does mean that the judicial system needs to be looked at, and laws need to be applied the same to anyone, especially when they endanger the lives of others.
I'm a convicted drink driver.
Despite having a 15 year no claims bonus and not having hurt or killed anyone, I'm still a criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Society has chosen to make an example out of me and all other drink drivers. I'm no fan of this particular law and I don't subscribe to the morality that endorses it.
American laws are not meant to be delivered equally, each case is expected to have it's own individual circumstances. That's why judges are allowed to set variable sentences within given guidelines.
baff I'm not even arguing about the length of her sentence, here again someone reads and only hears what they want to, again it's the "mob mentality" the "oh you're not one of us" so you come back with the same type of response. Something that has nothing to do with the words written above you, did you see the little "she deserves to be punished"? A court is not suppose to be run like a circus, nor is anybody suppose to be singled out as an example, not in American law, the laws are suppose to be delivered equally. If anyone in this forum really was concerned about justice they would be asking "why isn't every drunk driver treated like this?" instead of just gloating over one crying girl. If every drunk driver did get treated like this we'd have a lot less drunks who actually are killing people, that would be justice. To make an example of one but let the others go is a mockery, and as far from what our laws are suppose to do as you can get. I've known people, some of them friends and family, who have been killed by drunk drivers, even had one killed right in front of me, said goodbye to his girlfriend, went to cross the street to his car and was dead before he got half way across. Laws and harsh punishment are needed but not just to one singled out little airhead, they should apply to everyone. In my opinion this judge just wanted to be in the news, to have his 15 minutes of fame for being the one who finally put her where she belongs, this doesn't mean she should be set free but it does mean that the judicial system needs to be looked at, and laws need to be applied the same to anyone, especially when they endanger the lives of others.
I'm a convicted drink driver. Drunk
Despite having a 15 year no claims bonus and not having hurt or killed anyone, I'm still a criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Society has chosen to make an example out of me and all other drink drivers. I'm no fan of this particular law and I don't subscribe to the morality that endorses it.
Your still a criminal because you broke the law to begin with. You were lucky enough NOT to have hurt anyone that doesn't make you any better then someone who did because that someone could have been you.
American laws are not meant to be delivered equally, each case is expected to have it's own individual circumstances. That's why judges are allowed to set variable sentences within given guidelines.
I'm a convicted drink driver. Drunk Despite having a 15 year no claims bonus and not having hurt or killed anyone, I'm still a criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Society has chosen to make an example out of me and all other drink drivers. I'm no fan of this particular law and I don't subscribe to the morality that endorses it. Your still a criminal because you broke the law to begin with. You were lucky enough NOT to have hurt anyone that doesn't make you any better then someone who did because that someone could have been you.
Does that mean all those sober drivers who haven't hit someone are no worse than those sober ones who have? What nonsense. By your logic anyone who gets into a car is guilty of murder. It's not just drunk people who can hit people. Any driver can. It could have been you.
I'm willing to bet others are safer with me drunk at the wheel, than you sober. I see no reason to criminalise Drink Driving, when Reckless Driving already 100% covers the safety issue.
What makes me better than all the other drivers is not luck, it's skill. You try staying lucky for 15 years in a row and tell me how you get on.
I'm a convicted drink driver. Drunk Despite having a 15 year no claims bonus and not having hurt or killed anyone, I'm still a criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Society has chosen to make an example out of me and all other drink drivers. I'm no fan of this particular law and I don't subscribe to the morality that endorses it. Your still a criminal because you broke the law to begin with. You were lucky enough NOT to have hurt anyone that doesn't make you any better then someone who did because that someone could have been you.
Does that mean all those sober drivers who haven't hit someone are no worse than those sober ones who have? What nonsense. By your logic anyone who gets into a car is guilty of murder. It's not just drunk people who can hit people. Any driver can. It could have been you.
I'm willing to bet others are safer with me drunk at the wheel, than you sober. I see no reason to criminalise Drink Driving, when Reckless Driving already 100% covers the safety issue.
What makes me better than all the other drivers is not luck, it's skill. You try staying lucky for 15 years in a row and tell me how you get on.
Well differance is you know its a crime to drink then drive. Key word its a CRIME. there for criminal if you get caught. Just like its a crime if you Purposely go hitting people with your car. You know its against the law. And if you break the law you have to be punished. Dont want the crime dont do the crime.
No one is forcing me to drink and drive, but someone is forcing me not to.
That is not a personal choice.
I prefer personal choice, as a rule. Freedom, Liberty, that sort of thing. I don't interfere with you, you don't interfere with me...You know basic social behaviour.
I know many people are really into this particular law, but I'm not.
It's nanny state. Social engineering. The presumption of guilt.
I might not have run someone over but I am as bad as someone who did. After all, I could have done.
Comments
This is so wrong. People do not hate Paris Hilton because she is rich, they hate her because she continually demonstartes an arrogant contempt for all things around her that she feels are beneath her. I say things, because she treats people as things.
People acted the same way to Martha Stewart and she doesn't act arrogant or show contempt for all things around her.
In the Martha Stewert case she did exhibit arrogance and contempt as well as total disregard for the justice system. Martha Stewert lied to a federal grand jury investigating SEC charges into insider trading. Same with Scooter Libby, he was not convicted for outing Valerie Plame, he was convicted of obstruction of justice. Once again, it is a fundamental principle of the criminal justice system that people tell the truth, if they don't the system will be reduced to unworkabel anarchy and chaos.
I personally was involved with two federal trials after the Martha Stewert case. Prior to her jury verdict several witnesses lied to the investigators. They also lied to the prosecutors, and lied to the defence. Each and everyone involved could look at the testimony, review the evidence, and determine for themselves that these witnesses were lying. But proving the witnesses are lying is not what the trial is about, it was about proving the accused were either guilty, or not guilty. The witnesses were put up before a Federal Grand Jury (after the Martha Stewert decision), reminded of the penalty for perjury, and suddenly found God and changed their story before the grand jury. The Martha Stewert decision to those not involved in the criminal justice system may have seemed trivial. To those involved, it was an important decision/example.
Now, some of you may respond, "what about Bill Clinton, he lied and wasn't prosecuted AFTER his presidency" (A sitting president does not get prosecuted). Please note that, had it been a clear cut instance of perjury, the Bush administration/John Ashcroft Attorney General had up to three years to recommend prosecution. The problem in this case was that it was not clear cut, Clinton stated that he considered sexual relations to be only the act of intercourse between a man and a woman. He did not consider oral sex as sexual relations. Though many may feel this a weak arguement, the US Justice Department had to consider whether people may have different definitions of what does, and does not, constitute sexual relations. Had Bill Clinton been asked specifically about oral sex, and he answered no, he should have been charged with perjury by the Ashcroft Justice Department. Such a precedent, as allowing a sitting US President to lie under oath, would not have been a good thing.
Second, one of the major causes of highway deaths in the United States is driving under the influence. You seem to think DUI is not serious, not a crime in which anyone gets hurt. You are precisely the type of person that MADD is trying to educate regarding the seriousneess of DUI. This is not a "boys will be boys" crime. People die of it. If Paris Hilton was a poor slob of a factory worker the criminal justice system would behave the same, attempt to achieve behaviour modification so she would willingly stop being a DUI menace to the other drivers on the roads. The purpose of the criminal justice system is not to blindly punish, it is to achieve behaviour modification. DUI incidents can be prevented, yet you seem to think it appropriate that the police apply their time to something else, something you deem more important. If Johnny was consistently let out of jail for DUI by his cousin in Montana, there would be a serious problem with the criminal justice system, as Johnny would never realize that DUI and endangering other drivers on the road is not appropriate. And when Johnny killed someone, do we let him out so he can do it again?
Iceland has just a system. DUIs are taken care of by a small fine. Heck all crimes in Iceland are pretty much taken care of by fines and guess what they are the happiest people in the world. They have the least crime in the world. You can leave your baby in the stroller outside of a store and not have to worry about people stealing the child. Heck if a crime is committed you get out of prison for holidays and weekends.
I am glad that this works for Iceland, however, the number of fatalities which occur annually in the US as a result of DUI would not appear conducive to this type of a system. This is a decision made by a society, and this debate regarding how US society deals with DUI should probably be discussed in another thread.
People do not hate people because they are rich. They hate people based on the way they act. Try not being rich and walk around being an asshole. Try randomly treating other people as subhuman hubris. Walk up and fondle any woman yoi see on the street. You will find people hate you, and are glad to see the criminal justice system give you what you have coming. An asshole is an asshole, whether they are rich or not.
Have you ever met Paris Hilton? I seriously doubt you have. So you are basing your opinion on no factual data. You think she isn't a nice person and hate her for it, but you have never had a conversation with the woman. So you are seriously biased in the conversation.
No, I have never met Paris Hilton. I base my opinion in what I observe and multiple reading sources, as well as evaluating opinions of multiple others. Look, when you sit down to figure out who you are going to vote for as President of the US, you watch the candidates, listen to their positions, read up on their background, and have discussions with others, to form your opinion. From this opinion you will also determine the character of the person you wish to vote for. Paris Hilton is not exactly hard to find in the media, and her actions are well documented. I base my opinion on these factors, and I am allowed to state whether I like or dislike her ATTITUDE. That is what my entire threads are about her ATTITUDE as indicated by her actions. Frankly, there is no doubt in my mind that she doesn't have the slightest idea how her actions are interpreted by society, otherwise, you would see her "handler" advising her to modyify her behaviour in a manner similiar to the of Mel Gibson, or Martha Stewert. Had she publically acknowledged DUI, made her apologies, admitted responsibility, accepted the punishment the public would have alot different attitude toward her. After Martha Stewert was found guilty of perjury, she stepped up, served her time, and came out much stronger in the public eye than if she had carried on like Paris Hilton. Each of these two public personalities made a mistake, it is how they dealt with the mistake that sets them apart, and leads to public scorn and ridicule. Look at the Kennedy that was stopped for DUI in Washington DC sometime back, his first response was that he was on his way to a 2 AM session of Congress. The Kennedy handlers sure nixed this fast, and addressed the situation by putting him in rehab. This is an acknowldgement of wrong doing, and shows contrition by addressing the problem through rehab. Whether the rahab works or not depends on future occurance. For example, one can wonder about Lindsay Lohan's acknowledgement of her problem and acts of contrition when she is continually in and out of trouble/rehab.
If you have the priviledge, and yes it is a priviledge, to give up some of your time and serve on a jury, you will be asked to form an opinion on another person(s) that you do not personally know based on their actions. There is nothing wrong, for example, in judging whether a person's intent was to commit a crime. None of the jurors in the OJ Simpson case, or the Martha Stewert case, knew them, yet they were asked to determine whether this, based on a set of controlled facts given, displayed a conduct that was acceptable in our society. In forming that opinion, both the prosecution and the defence know that the potential jurors have been subjected to some form of media influence, and ask them to set that aside to concentrate sole on the set of controlled facts presentes. The difference between this, and the political selection process discussed above, is that as a voter you have no controlled set of facts, you must apply your own intelligence and experience, and form an opinion yourself. If we only voted for politicians we knew personally, and restrained from forming an opinion on them based on our observations of the actions and statements, elections could be over if only several hundred people voting. That's not how it works, which is why it is acceptable to form opinions on others that you do not know based on their actions, both observed and researched.
The arguement that any opinion I form of Paris Hilton based on her actions is biased ignores that which I have stated above. People can form opinions of others, and, those opinions are not biased if they are based on objective evaluation of conduct in the Paris Hilton case.
People do not hate Warren Bufet. He is rich. He has also done all those things that you say. He is not an arrogant asshole who holds things he believes beneath him, like people and the justice system, in contempt. He isnot an athlete, rock star, or movie star. By your logic, we should hate him and want to see him in jail because he is a socialite. But we don't. Why, because he knows how to conduct himself properly in society. On the other hand, OJ, and a Carolina Panthers player, for example were charged with murder. Michael jackson was charged with child molestation. Whether they are convicted, or acquitted, is based on the merits of the case. It is not up to the justice system to say, "No, we won't charge this person because their fans would not like to see them in jail". That, would be an injustice.
Warren Buffet is not a socialite, neither is bill Gates, neither is Oprah, neither is Stephen Spielberg, etc etc. They are people that are admired because they came from nothing and built up their fortune. On the other hand the vast majority of the population hates Socialites for no reason other then jealousy that the person was born into wealth.
I agree, Warren Buffet is not a socialite. But I was refuting an arguement that was presented by another poster. His arguement was that we hate socialites and will prosecute them because of their wealth, but will not prosecute rock stars, movie stars, or athletes because nobody wants to see their favorites in jail. I was awaiting a logical return arguement which that poster not able to provide. I am glad you did pick up the point however, as it allows me to make my point. There are more people out there other than socialites, rock stars, movie stars, and athletes that comprise the rich. For example, Diamler Chrysler CEO Dieter Zietsche's wife was charged with providing alcohol to minors at a party on his estate. I consider her to be one of the rich, I have never met her, and I don't hate her. She dealt with the accusation by acknowledgeing that yes, she had provide alcohol to minors, it was a common thing to do in Germany, and that, in her opinion, it was in a moderate amount and under adult supervision. She received a small fine, was told that is not appropriate, and went on her way. Nobody called her a "rich bitch socialite that ought to serve time", nobody gloated, the national media did not pick up on it, all becuase she handled it in a appropriate, adult manner. This is my point with Paris Hilton, she is considered an adult by our society, and consistently fails to act like one. This is why the majority of people hate her, she acts arrogant, disdains that she feels beneath her, and makes a mockery of the norms of our society.
"I'll scratch your back, you scratch mine". Where did you get your criminal justice degree from, Mexico? You think Americans willingly accept a two tiered system of justice based on that?
You are so wrong in your understanding of what the judge was trying to achieve. He was actually doing his job, exactly as it is designed.
No he wasn't. He was trying to make a point. Otherwise he would of put her in a treatment facility since she has an obvious problem with alcohol usage.
Alcohol isn't her only problem.
r
<mod edit>
I'll repeat what I said in a form that you cannot report
First off, since someone obviously can't read simple english I'll repeat what I've said all along
::Yells in your ear::
YES PARIS IS GUILTY
YES SHE DESERVES TO BE PUNISHED
I HAVE NEVER STATED OTHERWISE
::Puts his ear to yours and listens to the echo::
You guys want to keep repeating the list of crimes and claiming to know laws, if you really had a clue about laws you would know that laws differ in every state, in every county, and in every city, what may be true in one is not always the same in another unless it's a federal crime, so much for your pseudo claims to being knowledgeable in the law. It also shows that not one of you who have responded that way have bothered to read.
You keep repeating those lists and ignoring what I've said all along, attacking me only because I'm not part of your little mob mentality. I've never said one nice thing about the girl, yet I've had claims that I'm "infatuated". I've never disputed guilt or punishment yet you repeat the same lists in the same brain dead manner. You try and claim maturity for yourselves and that you are only seeking justice in a thread that is full of nothing but gloating and photos of a girl crying with captions like "Justice never looked so sweet", yeah real just and real mature.
What I do dispute is the mob mentality of gloating and kicking someone who cannot defend their self here, if you want to try and claim maturity you've got a long long way to go yourself, and I dispute the right of a judge who raves like an obvious maniac to sit on the bench, a judge is suppose to be fair and impartial, not a raving lunatic out to make a name for himself nor a person who wants to make an example of one single person, law is suppose to be applied the same to all, not just to one while others do the same.
µV
The Law needs to make examples.
The perception of the law to be unbiased is critical for the cohesion of society.
A fair and unbiased courthouse that gets burnt down by an angry mob, is a total failure.
Paris might be getting a stiffer punishment than you or I would in the same circumstance, but it is important to the people of America to see that she isn't getting a lighter one.
If you are a public figure, you are placing yourself up for this. Fame wasn't forced on her, she chose it and has pursued it. Take the good with the bad I reckon.
baff I'm not even arguing about the length of her sentence, here again someone reads and only hears what they want to, again it's the "mob mentality" the "oh you're not one of us" so you come back with the same type of response. Something that has nothing to do with the words written above you, did you see the little "she deserves to be punished"?
A court is not suppose to be run like a circus, nor is anybody suppose to be singled out as an example, not in American law, the laws are suppose to be delivered equally. If anyone in this forum really was concerned about justice they would be asking "why isn't every drunk driver treated like this?" instead of just gloating over one crying girl. If every drunk driver did get treated like this we'd have a lot less drunks who actually are killing people, that would be justice. To make an example of one but let the others go is a mockery, and as far from what our laws are suppose to do as you can get.
I've known people, some of them friends and family, who have been killed by drunk drivers, even had one killed right in front of me, said goodbye to his girlfriend, went to cross the street to his car and was dead before he got half way across. Laws and harsh punishment are needed but not just to one singled out little airhead, they should apply to everyone.
In my opinion this judge just wanted to be in the news, to have his 15 minutes of fame for being the one who finally put her where she belongs, this doesn't mean she should be set free but it does mean that the judicial system needs to be looked at, and laws need to be applied the same to anyone, especially when they endanger the lives of others.
µV
Let's see, round about 10 years ago, I was pulled over for not having plates on my car. I happened to be driving under suspension at the time. I also had a display knife in my car at the time, which I informed the officer of. I was arrested on the spot, and taken to jail, where I sat for about 36 hours before appearing before a judge, who refused my request to be released under my own recognizance, despite having no criminal record, and set my bail at $5000. It would have lowered at $100 a day while I sat in jail for 50 days, before even going to trial, had a relative not been there to nab my court appointed lawyer to speak to the judge.
I copped a plea to DUS, and carrying a concealed weapon(which I still think was bullshit, but whatever), paid $150 fine, and was put on 120 days of administrative probation, during which time I was required to get my license reinstated, which I did.
If I'd had a DUI, skipped court appointed treatment, then gotten busted not once, but twice for DUS, my ass would be in a sling. As it was, I watched a guy get 120 days for 2nd offense DUS while I was waiting to go before the judge.
Frankly, she should be glad she only got 45 days in jail considering what she could have ended up with.
lol, I swear to God I think TimeViewer is really Paris Hilton in the computer lab of the county jail.
No offense meant, Paris. Don't be mad at us. BTW, your album rocked!
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
When all of us responds to you and after every response your retort is "here again someone misunderstands me" that usually means you are not writing your posts down correctly.
Think it out first. Write it on paper first and then tell us how you truly feel. Remember, every forum post is likened to the final proof of a paper.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
People who have to create conspiracy and hate threads to further a cause lacks in intellectual comprehension of diversity.
I'm a convicted drink driver.
Despite having a 15 year no claims bonus and not having hurt or killed anyone, I'm still a criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Society has chosen to make an example out of me and all other drink drivers. I'm no fan of this particular law and I don't subscribe to the morality that endorses it.
American laws are not meant to be delivered equally, each case is expected to have it's own individual circumstances. That's why judges are allowed to set variable sentences within given guidelines.
This judge did not exceed these guidelines.
I'm a convicted drink driver. Drunk
Despite having a 15 year no claims bonus and not having hurt or killed anyone, I'm still a criminal. So much for innocent until proven guilty. Society has chosen to make an example out of me and all other drink drivers. I'm no fan of this particular law and I don't subscribe to the morality that endorses it.
Your still a criminal because you broke the law to begin with. You were lucky enough NOT to have hurt anyone that doesn't make you any better then someone who did because that someone could have been you.
American laws are not meant to be delivered equally, each case is expected to have it's own individual circumstances. That's why judges are allowed to set variable sentences within given guidelines.
This judge did not exceed these guidelines.
Does that mean all those sober drivers who haven't hit someone are no worse than those sober ones who have? What nonsense. By your logic anyone who gets into a car is guilty of murder. It's not just drunk people who can hit people. Any driver can. It could have been you.
I'm willing to bet others are safer with me drunk at the wheel, than you sober. I see no reason to criminalise Drink Driving, when Reckless Driving already 100% covers the safety issue.
What makes me better than all the other drivers is not luck, it's skill. You try staying lucky for 15 years in a row and tell me how you get on.
Does that mean all those sober drivers who haven't hit someone are no worse than those sober ones who have? What nonsense. By your logic anyone who gets into a car is guilty of murder. It's not just drunk people who can hit people. Any driver can. It could have been you.
I'm willing to bet others are safer with me drunk at the wheel, than you sober. I see no reason to criminalise Drink Driving, when Reckless Driving already 100% covers the safety issue.
What makes me better than all the other drivers is not luck, it's skill. You try staying lucky for 15 years in a row and tell me how you get on.
Well differance is you know its a crime to drink then drive. Key word its a CRIME. there for criminal if you get caught. Just like its a crime if you Purposely go hitting people with your car. You know its against the law. And if you break the law you have to be punished. Dont want the crime dont do the crime.I prefer it when lots of people just ignore the law and instead of punishing everyone they are forced to repeal it.
No one is forcing me to drink and drive, but someone is forcing me not to.
That is not a personal choice.
I prefer personal choice, as a rule. Freedom, Liberty, that sort of thing. I don't interfere with you, you don't interfere with me...You know basic social behaviour.
I know many people are really into this particular law, but I'm not.
It's nanny state. Social engineering. The presumption of guilt.
I might not have run someone over but I am as bad as someone who did. After all, I could have done.
- Burying Threads Since 1979 -
Hey we're ganking here if ya don't like it go play in Trammel.
R