Paris Hilton goes back to jail

[Domarius]

[sparhawk]

Poor girl must go to jail like everybody else. What a pitty.

[Baddcog]

All the simpsons think it's funny

 

[Komag]

hehe, that's one of those "it's such a crappy photoshop job it's funny" pics!

[Nyarlathotep]

Slow news day?

[Unstoppable]

Just goes to show that all the money in the world guarantees nothing .

[sparhawk]

That's the reason why they did it. If nobody had notice it, she would have been faster out than you can say "Take that money"

[Nyarlathotep]

Damn straight! Bitch still got to keep her hair extensions, though.

 

I was recently driving down the Interstate when I noticed a Ford Taurus had "Free Paris" written on the back window. At first I thought that France had been invaded by the Germans yet again, but then I realized that wasn't what she meant. That stupid woman (yes, it was a woman driving) had obscured her back windshield for noblest of causes: screwing over the public and getting special privileges for the rich. Why is it that the lower class and the lower-middle class seem to be hellbent on screwing themselves over in favor of the ultra-rich?

[Unstoppable]

Damn straight! Bitch still got to keep her hair extensions, though.

 

I was recently driving down the Interstate when I noticed a Ford Taurus had "Free Paris" written on the back window. I hadn't realized that France had been invaded by the Germans yet again, but then I figured out that wasn't what she meant. That stupid woman (yes, it was a woman driving) had obscured her back windshield for noblest of causes: screwing over the public and getting special privileges for the rich. Why is it that the lower class and the lower-middle class seem to be hellbent on screwing themselves over in favor of the ultra-rich?

 

Not me. Most people are easily fooled and manipulated by tv or other means. (bad people) Some people just don't think before they act. Also there seems to be an obsession with how celebreties portray themselves. It's sad really. That along with eating disorders, billions of pills, and all the other crap is what America has become.

 

There are still a certain few who are smart enough and not waste their time with all the above said crap =).

[Springheel]

I can't figure out which one is the bigger waste of time: making the picture, posting it, or responding in this thread.

 

(Although I can say from personal experience that the last one is a contender)

[jdude]

Is it just me, or is the US going backwards in terms of judicial and political policies? I'm aware it may be because I only get CNN and Global as news networks since I'm in Canada, but it appears that religion and popularity are playing far to large a role in the judicial and political systems than it ever should. Isn't it one of their amendments or something that religion and state should be separated and that everyone is equal? [lol] For example I think one republican is running on the platform of being a Christian. I just find it frustrating, probably because it's so over-exposed by the worlds horrible media.

[Crispy]

Spoilt little brat deserves all she gets. She has to learn that there are consequences for her actions (drink driving in this case), and she can't squirm her way out of them simply because she's mummy's little girl. DEAL WITH IT. Everyone else has to.

 

I can't stand spoiled rich brats.

[Baddcog]

I was recently driving down the Interstate when I noticed a Ford Taurus had "Free Paris" written on the back window. At first I thought that France had been invaded by the Germans yet again?

 

_edit- what happened??? I made a post and all I got was this quote, anyway...

 

it was something like, that comment killed me, I want that bumper sticker now so people ask if I mean p.h. and I can say, "no, germany invaded france again"

(it waS FUNNIER TO ME THE FIRST TIME I POSTED IT. damn caps lock

[demagogue]

People are bitching about "special treatment for the rich" and happy that she gets treated "like everybody else".

 

But I tend to think that whiny girls tend to get lenient treatment all the time. If she were a normal girl that easily cries and the holding police were sympathetic and let her off easy (which from my reading seems as much involved as daddy here; the police just didn't see the use of watching her wraith and bitch for a few more days for a petty offense), but anyway I'm sure happens all the time -- anyway, I notice crying girls getting off easy all the time, and daddies getting their way even when they're petty middle management guys -- it's the same thing but I'm sure nobody would have a problem with it. So I think she gets a double standard going the other way too.

 

But my real first reaction to this news was, well, first I laughed like Nelson like most everybody else -- it's hard not to want to! -- but my second reaction was jeez there are real problems in the world for people to be fixated on this. The infraction was so trivial that I don't really care if she spends those extra 30 days in jail or not; big deal. Whether she does or doesn't, it's such a relatively trivial thing (for her and everybody else involved), that it really doesn't make any practical difference one way or another, 10 days, 30 days... if only it weren't for people feeling that "there's a real principle at stake" ... but I'm not sure the term "principle" even means that much when the stakes are this low. I personally don't care enough about her or her "psy issues" or "special treatment" to can't stand her or be sympathetic. It's just not worth the attention for me. Put the news back on Iraq or Afghanistan or real criminals we really should worry about.

 

It does concern me, though, that people's attention on what's "a real problem here" seems so out of tune with the real problems out there, IMO. Why don't people get as heated about "the principle" involved in a wrongful death penalty, or the impunity of warlords and dictators, or real bribery/corruption in a state by the rich where the stakes are at an epic-scale, like wars or famines or state-sponsored killings?

Edited June 16, 2007 by demagogue

[Crispy]

The infraction was so trivial

No, it wasn't. She was caught driving on a suspended licence - twice (and those were only the times she was caught). Her licence was suspended because she was driving while drunk. Drink driving is not a trivial infraction; unlike (for example) failing to pay for parking, drink driving kills innocent bystanders.

 

I do agree that there are more important things to have news about - the whole manufactured-celebrity thing disgusts me. Unfortunately, it's human nature. It's hard to take in the scale of huge disasters that don't affect us personally; we tend to respond much more to individuals than we do to disasters. So that's what the news outlets carry.

[sparhawk]

I agree. I also don't consider drunk driving as trivial, especially if it happens multiple times. The only reason why it may seem trivial right now is because apparently nothing fatal happened. Would you still call it trivial if she had killed somebody? It's not as if this is not something unheard of.

[Baddcog]

I agree also that Drunk Driving should be taken seriously, then again I've been ran over by a drunk driver and had my lower leg broken. Tib/fib. Have a titanium rod in it now, very active person but if I run across the street my leg just kills me for an hour. It has had a major effect on my life, and that's only a broken leg, could've been much worse.

 

However I also agree that matters like these are fairly trivial in the world as a whole. The fact is that the sheriff should've never let here out of jail and the judge did the right thing. I'm more curious to see what happens to the sheriff now that the judge has filed contempt of court on him. Police need kept in check, I think that is a very big issue. What is so disturbing is that the press just smothers us in this crap but never talks about anything important.

I pretty much ignore the news anymore, it's all drivel.

[Macsen]

Why do people care so much about celebrities? Let us spend six forum pages discussing this question.

[demagogue]

Well, drunk driving itself is far from trivial, and there are really harsh punishments for repeat DUI's/DWI's, and if that were the case, throw the book at her; penalties are around 3 years for something like that, much much more for manslaughter if you hit someone. Anyone whose lost a friend that way won't have sympathy, and I won't disagree.

 

But driving perfectly safely and sober, but with a suspended license ... I mean, the cause is certainly good and high-minded, but it's not itself actually a public danger; it's more technical ... the "offense" is about creating the right incentives, sending the right messages, and upholding a punishment for a prior offense, things people debate in a way they don't for actually dangerous offenses, and the proper punishment is part of that debate. Her actions were clearly flaunting authority, which is offensive and stupid; don't get me wrong, I agree. The question isn't whether she gets punished (which would be a serious issue) but whether commuting the last 20 days in a cell into something like six months of community service is ok, given her "condition", and how all of that relates to that more technical debate about what's the right message to send through punishment for this kind of offense, and who decides.

 

She's getting punished no matter what; that's an important part of my last post. It's the penalty nudging on the margins for this offense itself I found had a flavor of low stakes, not whether she gets punished, not of the offense had been an actually public danger like a repeat DWI (both of which are much more serious issues). It's about what's the right message to send for the marginal stakes here (20/30 days of sitting in a cell) for the way she flaunted authority, and on the facts here, reasonable people not only can disagree, but are disagreeing in this very case, the police vs. the judge, both of which are under a lot of outside pressure (police to the family; judge to the public) so you can't trust that their decision has much to do with the actual facts of this case. But those facts are such that the stakes aren't really as high as people may be perceiving them; her condition probably isn't soo much more traumatized by those extra days in jail ... and commuting jail-time to another form of penalty isn't soo undermining when we're only talking about an extra 20/30 days and commuting it to something that's hardly a walk in the park, and it's in the proper legal police discretion to do this (they are not doing anything legally wrong or inherently improper here; the only question was whether their discretion was reasonable in the judge's opinion), and she's still getting proportionally punished no matter what, don't miss that part of my point, again the trivial part I noted wasn't that issue. Anyway, the judge got his victory, and public faith in the system is restored ... it just seems like a small thing when you look to the actual details of what's actually been affected in reality.

 

Just don't misunderstood me, though. I'm NOT saying drunk driving is trivial; it's not. I agree it's a serious offense that isn't trivial. That wasn't exactly what I was referring to.

Edited June 16, 2007 by demagogue

[Domarius]

I can't figure out which one is the bigger waste of time: making the picture, posting it, or responding in this thread.

 

(Although I can say from personal experience that the last one is a contender)

Making the picture took exactly 5 minutes. (Search for nelson, search for paris, open in photoshop, delete blue background from nelson with Magic Wand tool, drag over to paris as new layer, resize nelson layer, save) Uploading it to photobucket an extra minute (logging in etc). I knew I could do it quick and decided it was worth a bit of fun.

 

Posting this took 30 seconds.

[Domarius]

The infraction was hardly trivial - drunk driving, and drunk driving on a suspended licence, as if she can't see the harm in drunk driving. A drunk driver could kill any person that is close to me, so I have no sympathy for this stupid girl.

 

And then to cry "It's not fair!" as she gets taken back to jail from her special treatment prison. She really doesn't get it.

[demagogue]

Just to be completely clear more concisely: I didn't mean to say the infraction was trivial. It isn't. Far from it. What seemed low stakes IMO was substituting one form of punishment (30 days sitting in a cell) with another form of punishment (30 days in home confinement) for this case. She's getting punished no matter what, in a situation BTW where normal people probably wouldn't get jail time under the same facts of this case.

 

It would have been much different story IMO if the underlying crime were a serious danger to the public like drunk driving (it was speeding, sober, on a suspended license, bad but not recklessly dangerous, and not normally jail-time worthy) or if she was getting pardoned with no punishment at all. Those would definitely not have been trivial things, but those are not exactly this case.

 

ALSO, THIS POINT CANNOT BE MISSED:

 

According to Sheriff Baca, under normal circumstances, Hilton would not have served any time in jail, and he added that "The special treatment [i.e., getting prison time], in a sense, appears to be because of her celebrity status ... She got more time in jail".

 

If anything isn't "fair", it's that people have this "I'm not sympathetic" trip on this case and thinks she deserves more punishment just to "feel what it's like". I'm not sympathetic to her, either, but the "unfairly deferential" sword cuts both ways.

 

Granted her whining doesn't help her cause. But anyway, like I said from the beginning, 30 days in a cell isn't that much different from 30 days home confinement, so in the end, it's a lot of talk about principled unfairness on both sides for not much practical difference.

Edited June 18, 2007 by demagogue

[sparhawk]

You have never been in jail, right? Well, I wasn't either, but I was once in a cell for a night (I wasn't even involved, just happened to be in the wrong palce, but I know everybody says that ). A friend of mine was in jail becuase he was stupid enough to become managing director for a cheater who was smarter (he also tried it with me, but I was not stupid enough for him ).

I can definitely tell you that 30 days confied to your home is VERY different then 30 days in jail. While 30 days is certainly not much, I still would rather take the days at home, then going in a jail.

[OrbWeaver]

30 days in a cell isn't that much different from 30 days home confinement

 

This is Paris Hilton we're talking about, right? Her "home" probably more like what most of us would refer to as a "palace".

[sparhawk]

Even so, it is a big difference. After all, you have access to all your money, so you can order stuff, your friends can visit you and so on. So living 30 days confined to your home may be boring, but it is definitely better then spending it in prison. Assuming you have a decent enough home.

 

Heck, if I had to stay 30 days at home, I could spend my time on the computer all day, without having a bad consciousness.