Re: Paris Hilton & Rich People Going To Jail (you're probably not going to agree with this)

[THUNDER HANDS]

I may be in the extreme minority on this, but I don't think the ultra rich should go to jail when they're convicted of crimes that have nothing to do with harming anyone else.

I think the public would be better served by setting maximum fines of millions upon millions of dollars as punishment, rather than jail time.

What does the public benefit from Paris Hilton doing 45 days in jail?

Wouldn't the people be better off if she were forced to pay $5 million or $10 million in exchange for jail time? Couldn't that money be put to good use at a school, or a pubic park, or at a rehab center somewhere?

Think of all the money that could be generated by monetarily penalizing the rich instead of jailing them. You could have windfall of profits for states like New York and California that could put those funds towards education and road construction or other uses.

I'm sure we'd all like to see the rich get treated the same as everyone else, but it's obvious that the rich are not like us - more than race, or religion, money is what separates most people in society. You can send them to jail, but they'll still be rich and snobby when they get out.

The least you could do would be to take a chunk out of their wallet to benefit society.

[The Count]

1. Why not BOTH? Equal treatment under the law would be the public interest here.

[DS1]

2. You're right

all she's doing is costing the state more money, as well as destroying revenue for the local vodka bars

hit them where it really hurts

* but it's still fun to throw her ass in the clink *

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Jackpine Radical]

3. The law treats all alike.

It forbids the rich, as well as the poor, from sleeping under bridges and staling crusts of bread.

[rodeodance]

4. for the experience they should have SOME jail time then Hit the pocketbook!

[Gormy Cuss]

5. No.

Too much of that sort of "justice" happens already in this country.

[gatorboy]

6. How about her drunk ass is off the street for 45 days.

I had a good friend who was killed by a drunk driver. Paris' behavior makes her a menace as far as I'm concerned. It's not like some white collar crime.

[THUNDER HANDS]

15. you could take away her license, and fine her

and that would serve the same purpose. If she comes out of jail after 45 days, still has a license, still goes drinking, still drives drunk, what did it accomplish?

Take away her license and fine her millions. At least do some public good.

[bicentennial_baby]

19. She apparently doesn't much care if she has her license or not,

as this is what got her into this mess, the suspended license. Which I find bizarre, as she is quite capable of having someone drive her anywhere she wants to go, any time of day or night.

[THUNDER HANDS]

26. yeah, that was really weird

I don't understand her not just having a driver on call. I'm sure she'd pay well.

[bicentennial_baby]

31. I've heard that she prefers to drive herself...

Maybe in the future she will feel differently, no? :)

[THUNDER HANDS]

33. i hope so

at least Lindsay Lohan has the sense to use a driver.

[gatorboy]

40. A driver? Lindsay Lohan JUST totaled her car on the 26th.

DUI by the way.(sound familiar?)

[bicentennial_baby]

55. Yep

Just about to post that. Endemic celebutante DUI problem, it seems.

[gatorboy]

27. They DID take her license away.

That didn't seem to work out so well.

[THUNDER HANDS]

34. stupidity

which is why I don't think jail will be effective punishment for her. Some people are too stupid to realize what the punishment is supposed to do to them.

They can't stop and think about life if they don't know what to think about.

[gatorboy]

37. I saw her face today.

I think she has a good idea now how effective jail is. She got a taste of it earlier and now knows she's headed back.

[Matariki]

58. Good point. Jailtime is THE thing that will keep her from doing it again.

Not buying her way out of just punishment.

[JAYJDF]

7. I could agree with this only if non violent law offenders

could be put on house arrest. I mean, the only thing that sending most to prison does is to ruin their financial lives and raise money for the prisons.

[PassingFair]

8. Why should ANYONE go to jail then.

They're SUPPOSED to be PUNISHED.

WTF.

Putting them in jail where they can't
utilize their wealth is fitting.

[onenote]

9. interesting concept of justice

Right now our justice system favors the rich in a variety of ways (access to better lawyers, easier to make bail, etc.). You don't propose fixing it by creating a system that is more equal; rather you would simply make it unequal in the other direction.

The law specifies the penalty for a crime, not in terms of who the criminal is, but in terms of the crime committed. If the penalty for a particular crime is 45 days in jail, that means Joe Average who makes 25 grand a year is going to lose 45 days of pay cause he can't work those days. Joe Stockbroker, who makes 500 grand a year also is going to lose 45 days of work and in absolute terms that will cost him more than it cost Joe Average. Maybe he can make up the lost income, maybe not.

[coco77]

10. I am thinking about why ...

some people are getting upset, because justice was served. Its not what we benefit from her going to jail, it is what she will benefit from it. She will learn that the world is not all fun and games, she will grow up, and she will learn that she is not above the law and maybe her parents will learn that also.

[BurtWorm]

42. There should not be two standards of justice based on wealth.

Period.

[Richard Steele]

11. You are proposing a system wherein the very wealthy don't have to obey the law. No thanks.

And I'll tell you what "public interest" her incarceration serves:
it SERVES to remind all the foolish young people who consider her
to be a "role model" that her attitude and actions have CONSEQUENCES.

[THUNDER HANDS]

13. all the jail time is gong to do

is force her to get a full-time driver.

I doubt she'll learn any lesson from this.

At least you could get some money out of it. I'm sure there's a rehab center that could use $10 million.

[Richard Steele]

30. Excellent- creates a job, and keeps the streets safer at the same time. How wonderful! nm

[hlthe2b]

43. Please re-read post #11.... I think DickSteele makes a really good

point regarding her influence on other young people....:shrug:

[demobabe]

54. Jail is no cakewalk

It isn't like big-people timeout. The last I heard, when she was in the first time, she was in a solitary cell with only 1 hour out for phonecalls and exercise. I think it is good when celebs go to jail, because when they come out, they always talk of prison reform which is sorely needed. Jails and Prisons should reform and reintegrate people back into society - as they are now, they cause more injury and nearly guarantee continued failure in society.

[THUNDER HANDS]

16. ah, the "example" theory

how many times has that actually worked?

[hlthe2b]

44. We know how well "bad examples" work

and particularly those examples set by "admired" sports, music, and other celebrities.

[aquart]

12. Maybe they could pay someone else to serve their time, too?

In the Civil War, they paid poor immigrants to go to war for them. Oh, wait.

[WiseButAngrySara]

14. Interesting fact about the surviving Hilton's money. ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Hilton

Conrad Hilton died on January 3, 1979, in Santa Monica, California at age 91 from natural causes. He is interred at Calvary Hills Cemetery, in Dallas, Texas.
His estate founded the Conrad N. Hilton Humanitarian Prize. He left US$250,000 to each of his surviving siblings and US$10,000 to each of his nieces and nephews. Most of his assets were willed to the Roman Catholic Church and charities. However, Conrad's son Barron contested the will and won in 1988. The net worth of Barron and his descendants then jumped to over US$335 million.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

17. is is norway or finland that sets speeding fines according to your income?

I recall reading about a $187,000 speeding fine, AFTER the guy had been caught several times. (Really expensive, fast car, and millions in income)

[Tom Joad]

18. I think you are half-right. But i think the public would be better served if

fewer poor/workin class folk went to jail as well.

There should be alternatives to jail for all, in many cases.

for almost all DUI drivers (except those who have caused bodily injury). If it were up to me... i would take away drivers licenses and give them bus passes and bicycles. If they violate the order, confiscate cars and extend the license loss for years.
I would rather see someone who did what Paris did (violate probation on a DUI) get a 5 year license loss rather than a relatively short-stint in jail... she will probably get her license back too soon in my view.

In that way, the punishment (i am not really into punishment anyway... i think the emphasis should be on restitution and reconciliation... so for example, a shoplifter pays the store back, a mugger pays the victim back and so) on fits the crime. This way we taxpayers aren't paying for expensive jails... the offender gets to work... but stay out of vehicles. Yes, there is the chance they will blow it... but who is to say that someone who does a jail stint is not going to blow it afterward anyway? no guarantees either way.
I don't think most people belong in jail, rich or poor... we should think of alternatives. The poor suffer the most... if they go to jail they lose their jobs.

i know the hurt DUI drivers cause. I remember losing a young activist friend to a DUI accident years ago. She was engaged to be married. I won't forget her crying boyfriend at the memorial service.

But i think more aggressive loss of license-driving privilege (especially for repeat offenders) is better than jail time.

[THUNDER HANDS]

24. true

jail should be for the really bad. I know them when I see them, as I've been to many a parole hearing and seen some bad folks. Paris Hilton should not be lumped into this group.

Equal punishment under the law is a nice concept, but sometimes there are better ways when you're dealing with people who have the financial resouces to benefit society in a much larger way than a few weeks in jail.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

20. They Should Be Treated No Differently Than Anyone Else. In This Case, I'm Actually Thinking She

got treated a bit more harshly than others would, do to her status. 45 days served out in entirety is a bit much for this. But she'll still live, and most definitely have a little bit different of a perspective on life afterwards.

I think everybody (not including those already suffering immensely in life) should have to spend a week in 23-1 lockdown at some point in their life in order to gain a perspective they wouldn't gain elsewhere.

[THUNDER HANDS]

25. do you think persepctive matters

to someone who'll never have to work a day in their life because they'll be rich until the day they die?

She'll come out of this 45 days later and act like nothing had happened. She'll go back to her mansion and live her life again the same way. If she's smart, she'll get a driver.

So much more could have come out of this though.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

28. Have You Ever Been In Lockdown?

I assure you that she will have gained additional perspective and depth. That doesn't mean she's going to change her life or cease to be rich, nor should it. But she will have had an experience and an outlook that will certainly never leave her.

[THUNDER HANDS]

32. if that were true

then people who've been locked up would never commit crimes again. I've seen too many people, criminals, who have a rap sheet a mile long keep doing crimes over and over again. It all depends on the mindset of the individual, not the punishment itself.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

35. We're Not Talking About Career Criminals Here Or Low Life Thugs.

I'm talking about everyday people. And it is true.

If you haven't ever been in lockdown then I can understand why you don't have that level of understanding about it. But it does make an impact, even if it isn't shown outwardly. But from a mental perspective, it absolutely makes a lasting impression. But unless you've gone through it or something similar to it, you couldn't possibly understand.

[damntexdem]

22. Nah, send her to jail.

But I like the idea of millions of dollars in fines.

[mudesi]

23. Drunk driving is not harmless (nm)

[THUNDER HANDS]

29. well, drunk diving is potentially harmful

but if she doesn't hurt anybody, all she was doing was risky behavior. It would be actually harmful if she hit someone or caused an accident to occur. Drunk driving itself is certainly not harmless, however.

As it is she was lucky. The guy on Long Island who hit and killed that little girl and that limo driver got the max sentance - murder. He was in a circle of friends that my girlfriend's cousin hangs out with. He was at my girlfriend's cousin's friend's house the night he was drinking and left and drove the wrong way on the parkway and killed those two people. The DA threw the book at him, as she should have, IMO.

[mudesi]

47. I don't discern the difference

I don't care that she was lucky. Her behavior endangered innocent lives. To not have adequate punishment for such behavior is irresponsible and reprehensible. Something is wrong with the system when someone who steals secrets from Coca-Cola gets 8 years in prison, while someone who could've killed others but didn't because of dumb luck gets a slap on the wrist.

[hlthe2b]

36. How about NO ONE should go to jail when they're convicted of

crimes that have nothing to do with harming anyone else!

What does the public benefit from poor and middle class non-violent offenders doing 45 days in jail?

Why single out the RICH? :shrug:

[onenote]

49. and how do you propose to punish people who violate the law

Paris Hilton was convicted of reckless driving. While she didn't harm anyone, the reason reckless driving is a crime is because it poses a serious risk of harming others. I'm going to assume that you don't think that people who are guilty of reckless driving should just be sent merrily on their way and not punished unless and until they manage to actually harm someone.

So its a question of how to punish them. In this case, the punishment for reckless driving was jail time of up to 90 days. The judge didn't impose that sentence, but instead imposed a fine, required alcohol education, and put her on probation. She violated the terms of her probation by driving on a suspended license.

The jail time is not for driving on the suspended license. Its for violating the terms of her probation, resulting in reinstatement of a portion of the original punishment she could've faced from her reckless driving.

Using probation to avoid putting folks in jail for criminal acts is a good idea. But not putting people in jail when they then violate the terms of their probation is not such a smart idea.

[hlthe2b]

52. To Clarify... I'm not advocating not punishing...

I am only pointing out the incredible disconnect/bias in the original post. I find it amazing that anyone would argue that ONLY THE RICH and PRIVILEGED should have this consideration (if any are to have such consideration), that is all.

[Johonny]

38. I don't get it

Allow people to buy their way out of jail? I got a better idea. They should be allowed to pay someone to serve the time for them. Why not create jobs at the same time.

[THUNDER HANDS]

59. well, people already buy their way out of jail

it's called posting bail.

If you set it at $1 million, only the ultra rich can get out, otherwise they spend a few days in the pokie.

If someone is no threat to society, why shouldn't they have the option of contibuting to society instead of just having the taxpayers fund their "punishment."

[RB TexLa]

39. Punishment should fit crimes

I think jail is much for driving on a suspended license, but it's within what is an acceptable punishment for it. The soak the rich idea usually come down to a question of who is rich. If someone who makes $80,000 and someone who makes $200,000 both come to court for driving on a suspended license, should the judge say the $200K a year person should have a fine of $25,000 and the $45K a year person should have a fine of $2000.

Judges already weight monetary fines by the ability of the defendant to pay within the ranges prescribed as punishment by law.

[onenote]

50. except she wasn't sent to jail for driving on a suspended license

She was sent to jail for reckless driving (based on her driving while intoxicated). She was given 36 months probation, a fine, and required to attend an alcohol education program. She was then found to be driving with a suspended license (the second time after she was stopped while speeding with no lights on at night).

Because she violated her probation, she faced the jail time associated with her original offense: reckless driving while intoxicated.

What is the point of using probation as a way to avoid sending people to jail for reckless, drunk driving if you aren't going to enforce the probation.

[RB TexLa]

61. Still that doesn't fit the millions of dollars in fines the OP proposed

[snagglepuss]

41. Your wrong. She she do prison and pay for it . After all why should

her rehabilitation be free?

[stirlingsliver]

45. Attitude Adjustment for Rich, No-Talents

Sending people like Paris Hilton to jail does serve a very good and useful purpose.

It is (or should be) a MAJOR period of attitude adjustment for the rich, no-talent, over-privileged and over-indulged people -- like Paris Hilton.

They look down at the rest of us with disdain and contempt.

They need to have their attitudes adjusted -- and the NEED to be made to understand that the law applies to them!

And they also need to understand that their money WILL NOT help them to buy their way out of the lousiest, most stinking jail we can throw them in!

[Cleita]

46. Even if those who can't see the injustice in sending her to jail

for something not so heinous should think about the fact that if they can do this to her, look what they can do those who don't have the money, lawyers and connections she does.

I don't think fining her money will make much of a difference to her. She has too much. I would like to see her do community service, dirty jobs, freeway trash pickup, cleaning vault toilets in parks, cleaning up at the morgue. Every time she breaks her probation, up the sentence, more hours doing community service until she gets the idea that she isn't above the law. Taking up her time doing things she doesn't want to do will make more of an impression than fines will or even jail time.

I really don't believe in jail for victimless crimes. We have other ways of enforcing the law.

[aikoaiko]

48. Jail seems to be having the right effect on her -- misery.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

51. The intent of the punishment should be

to wake up this woman so she realizes that her consumption of alcohol is dangerous and potentially lethal.

If I knew for sure that a fine of 5-10 million dollars would stop her behavior, I would be all for it. But I am not sure it would.

The jail time for her may be of more help--for one thing, she will have to remain sober for the duration of her sentence. And maybe she will begin to realize that actions have consequences that money can't buy off.

[Evoman]

53. Your right.

I'm not going to agree with this.

Unless, perhaps, she gets the choice of a billion dollars or 45 days. That sounds reasonable.

[ShortnFiery]

56. BOTH! They are the *scum* of the earth - FILTHY RICH suck! n/t

[Matariki]

57. Jail-time is meant to be a deterrent.

The issue of whether it benefits society is moot. Sending a person to jail, rich or poor, is always a burden on society in terms of cost. Very rich people being able to buy their way out of punishment for the crimes they commit is a TERRIBLE idea. The law needs to apply to rich and poor equally or else we have no real justice.

What you are proposing is along the lines of what the medieval church did selling 'indulgences'. Only worse.

This should really be obvious.

[proud patriot]

60. hmmm Interesting

x( :think: something to ponder

[Colobo]

62. Equal treatment under the law.