Through no fault of her own (the only aspect of this saga that was not her fault), Paris Hilton accidentally led people to ask serious questions about relevant issues.
Let me begin by saying that I fall into the hardliners camp (big surprise to those who know me). I think her parents should be executed for having had her, and that sterilizing her might be a good idea. Having said that, she herself is irrelevant, and so are her friends. Except for the fact they run around town without underwear on and sex like it’s going out of style, these young bimbos have no redeeming qualities.
However, some serious issues happened these last couple of days. First of all, Sheriff Lee Baca (who I have met, shaken hands with, found likable, and know nothing else about) allowed Paris to be released early, and Judge Sauer overruled him and ordered her back in jail. Somebody went beyond the bounds of their constitutional authority.
This is serious. While entertainment reporters and other parasites analyze Paris Hilton, which I refuse to do (something about being the product of intelligent design by either God, my parents, or both), I am more concerned that it took a useless bimbo to cause people in Los Angeles city government to realize that there is a potential constitutional crisis looming on the horizon. Either the Sheriff or the Judge has the right to decide whether someone can be released early. They cannot both have this authority. The buck has to stop with somebody.
Conservatives are constantly complaining about liberal activist judges, but conservative judicial activism is just as dangerous. Did the judge engage in judicial activism, or was he merely enforcing the law? Did the Sheriff violate a legitimate judicial order, or was he acting in his discretion as top law enforcement official? We have to find out who has what functions. If the Founding Fathers can set up a US Constitution with brilliant checks and balances that spells out who has what responsibilities, surely we can find out who in Mayberry is responsible for making sure the local jail is run properly.
The second very relevant issue deals with the overcrowding in the Los Angeles prisons. Paris Hilton, as unlikable as she is, is a low level nonviolent offender. Yes, drunk driving can injure people, but our criminal justice system punishes people on what actually occurs, not what could occur. There is no evidence she or her handlers even through punches at any paparazzi, rendering her not the worst Hollywood celebrity out there. So as badly as some people want to send her to Guantanamo Bay, cooler heads will agree she is not a national security threat. She is, again, a low level nonviolent offender. These people, it has been told to us, serve only 10% of their sentences due to overcrowded prisons.
This is a major concern. Some states have “truth in sentencing” laws, where the person must serve 85% of their time in prison. We need to build more prisons. Overcrowding is not acceptable. The “Not in my back yard” crowd has to understand that property values be d@mned, we cannot have criminals out roaming the streets. No, Paris Hilton is not a hardened criminal. However, I refuse to believe that everyone released early is a low level nonviolent offender.
The bottom line is that while Paris Hilton will remain irrelevant, issues arising out of her arrest and rearrest are very relevant. If people lose faith in any system, be it Wall Street, the military, political institutions, or our criminal justice system, the system collapses. It is vital that these issues be addressed because to send somebody home, and then rearrest them, because our law enforcement people are not on the same page, is a big concern.
My uninformed belief is that the judge gave specific instructions, those instructions were violated, and the judge made it crystal clear that he was enforcing clearly laid down rules and conditions. Time will tell if that is what happened. Paris should not be treated better or worse than anybody else. Fair treatment will be impossible if the various agencies and institutions meting out punishment are working against each other, rather than being vital components of the same team.
eric
I rarely, if ever, wade into political discussions. Primarily, because most discussions are more about turf and hidden agendas. And, I truly believe, most who argue in these so called debates are not even clearly aware of what IS hidden in their agendas. I will ask you to excuse me for joining your discussion of the Hilton incident. Why? Well…damn it…I never thought much about what you presented. And, yes….I do believe strongly some strange emotional hidden agenda is being communicated by somebody….The Judge???? The Sheriff???
As you very carefully illuminated Paris Hilton could very well be my sister or my cousin or my next door neighbor. While I must admit she is not, her public persona (created for the most part by that mad cows that follow her) would be negligent except for those who wish to see the so-called might fall. Paris’ trials and tribs could have quietly passed as another moment of everyday law being carried out. BUT, we may have found a judge or a sheriff has been swept up into the arms of an illusion called “Paris” that seems to entertain the delusional….
While at first I thought the judge was performing his duties and Paris needs to get real before she accidentally kills herself……I now feel confident he has, like Judge Ito of O.Js noteriety, found a stage upon which he could dance to the music of his hidden agenda.
Like my cousins, or friends, or 98% of my neighbors Paris WAS NOT A THREAT incarcerated at home….BUT NOW, I do believe she is in danger..The intense nature of the judge’s willingness to be an conservative activist judiciary will now cost the jail far more than ever….This young lady is not in balance….and the judges actions will be in the courts with the Hilton’s for years…….
Thanks for allowing me to share…….
Michael.
That’s quite a post you wrote, Eric. I truly don’t know what to think regarding this matter, other than the media, because of Paris’s noteriety and wealth, turned it into a media circus. If she hadn’t been who she is we of course would never have heard about any of this. Like you, I’m not concerned over whether she serves the entire 45 days or not, but I do feel that confining her to her house, which is actually a huge mansion with large grounds, is hardly any punishment at all. Like you said though, the question is not how severely or laxly Paris is punished, but who gets to make that decision. I would think the Judge but evidently the Sherif didn’t think so.
As for California’s legal system, I think in many cases it has already collapsed.
Well, she didn’t go to jail for her actual offense, but for violating her probation, not once but twice. She was already treated leniently.
Further (and I live in LA County, too) if Baca has the authority to determine whether or not someone actually does their time, what do we need judges for at all? His job is to make sure they DO do the time sentenced by the judge, not set himself up as an uber-authority whose own discretion supercedes that of the court system.
The LASO has a long history of being corrupt, and Baca is one of the worst offenders. As Joe Avergae, try to get a CCW and see what happens. But if you’re a celebrity bud of Baca’s, you can pack a cannon; ask Ben Affleck. He’ll even make you an auxiliary deputy; ask Lou Ferrigno.
And if you’re Joe Average, you’ll do your time in jail reduced by good behavior, not automatically transferred to home monitoring in your luxury manse.
Having worked in the criminal justice system, I can tell you that home monitoring is normally a benefit defendants have to fight hard to get, and it’s not granted easily.