She drove drunk--- lost her license, and then drove with a suspended license.

[trumad]

She got pulled over twice since her Reckless Driving offense and was let go the first time. She flaunted the fucking law and now she's paying for it.

<snip>
Hilton's path to jail began September 7, when she failed a sobriety test after police saw her weaving down a street in her Mercedes-Benz on what she said was a late-night run to a hamburger stand.

She pleaded no contest to reckless driving and was sentenced to 36 months' probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines.

In the months that followed she was stopped twice by officers who discovered her driving on a suspended license. The second stop landed her in Sauer's courtroom, where he sentenced her to jail.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/08/paris.hilton.ap/index.html

[johnnie]

1. Yeah

And?

[AZBlue]

80. To you and everyone else defending her: so now drunk driving is OK??

Are you effing kidding me??????!!!?!

[johnnie]

86. I'm not defending her

I just wonder why the OP is telling everyone what she did. I think after 560 fucking threads about her we all know what she did.

[AZBlue]

134. OK, sorry - then this post wasn't for you - but there are others on here that are defending her.

It's shocking to me.

[King Coal]

188. But, the poor girl didn't [i]mean[/i] to do it. She meant to be nice.

See, nobody understands her. None of you do. We should take up a collection and send her a bunch of flowers.

[LostinVA]

132. Having had a friend killed by a drunk drver, this sickens me

[johnnie]

136. Once again

You have no idea what my post was about

[CatWoman]

2. *smooch*

educate the Hilton Holdouts!!

:hi:

[Breeze54]

9. Exactly!

:P

[coco77]

3. Tell that to Geraldo..

and Anne coulter who seem to think that everyone just wants her in jail because they hate her. The law is the law.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Well, with Ann Coulter it's true.

Everyone wants her in jail because they hate her.

Or am I projecting?

[coco77]

12. That's what I was thinking when I saw her speaking..

she needs her ass in there, she just got away with voter fraud.

[antonialee839]

43. Where's Bradley Schlozman when you need him?

[Beaverhausen]

14. OH please- Ann's going to jail? Oh please Oh please

[The Backlash Cometh]

61. Ann Coulter is running scared because she knows nobody in America

likes her and she's afraid of what will happen to her if this voter fraud problem of hers doesn't go away. Imagine if we did the same and demand that Ann Coulter be treated the way the Republicans wanted voter fraud prosecuted. Coulter had an FBI agent intercede for her, and Parish Hilton had a Sheriff that received a $1000.00 donation from gramps to intercede for her. (Or so has been said on DU)

I'm not having any trouble seeing where this is all bizzarro. This is why there is so much injustice in this country. Sheriff's, FBI agents, Judges, are just a good ole boy connection away from being bought.

[mediawatch]

62. so you must want the female soldier from NH

who is charged with deserting to go to jail. The law is the law.. right

[corkhead]

63. .

self delete

[Jackpine Radical]

4. I think that would be flouting the law, not flaunting it.

I believe she flaunts other things.

[Bjornsdotter]

7. Hmmmm

....for some reason I now have a craving for flautas.

Cheers :toast:

[demnan]

6. Bush was drunk at the G8

Too bad the bloody bastard wasn't driving last night.

[nonconformist]

8. And then she didn't show up for her court date

And some wonder why the punishment was so "harsh". Maybe, just maybe, so that she would learn that this is pretty damn serious?

[nini]

10. Her parents should be shot for how they raised her

No accountability and priviledged. She is freaking falling apart over this and has zero coping skills.

God help her if she ever gets cancer or something really scary to deal with.


The rest of us would be sucking it up and paying the price for what we did.

[partylessinOhio]

19. SHOT? Unfu!kingbelievable.

Wishing cancer on her too?



:puke:

[nini]

28. oh please.. the only to barf about is your response

you know damn well I'm now wishing cancer on her and the 'shot' comment was a figure of speech.

[Warren DeMontague]

65. A figure of speech that sounded an awful lot like "her parents should be shot"

Maybe you should try to find more appropriate figures of speech.

[Warren Stupidity]

91. No you misunderstand.

When somebody says something hateful like "x should be taken out and shot" or "y should die of cancer", they don't really mean that "x should be taken out and shot" or that "y should die of cancer", that is just a figure of speech. What they really mean is that "x should be taken out and shot" or that "y should die of cancer". See?

[Kerrytravelers]

109. The exact quote regarding cancer is:

No accountability and priviledged. She is freaking falling apart over this and has zero coping skills.

God help her if she ever gets cancer or something really scary to deal with.

This is saying that "if" she had something life-threatening, her coping skills don't seem mature enough to handle it. The poster is not wishing cancer on her. This is something that people say when referring to a person who has had to deal with little in their lives and still fall apart at everything. It's not a wish of sickness and /or death on another person.

[Zomby Woof]

187. That's a given in GD

The worse a person's reading comprehension skills, the more histrionics you can expect of them.

I used to think they just came off as humorless scolds, but lately I just see them as dumber than a box of turds.

[nini]

190. thanks

the things people choose to pick on here is a bit much.

[nini]

189. Maybe you should quit being so ridiculous

If you really think I meant I wanted her parents shot then you need to quit being so over dramatic. :eyes:

[bullwinkle428]

20. Paris will deal with REAL trauma the day

the media stops paying attention to her...

[Cha]

87. Zing!

And the news corporatewhores can focus ad nauseum on some other attention addict and waste the country's time with meaningless celebrity breakdowns.

[jazzjunkysue]

114. "Where's your orange jumpsuit, Miss Hilton?" "How was the psyche ward?"

That's actually what she'll be hearing from the press from now on. Do you think she'll be able to make those cute little pouts in the strapless evening gowns for the press with all the verbal abuse she'll be getting?

I think her press pimping days are probably over.

What will she do with herself, now?

[TahitiNut]

11. Compare that to innocent people kept in jail because the can't afford bail

... who're finally acquitted at trial. THOSE people don't usually have the same 'demographics' though.

:eyes:

[KamaAina]

13. But she's rich! Filthy, stinking rich!

:sarcasm:

I may possibly have left a comma out near the end of the header...

[LibDemAlways]

15. Compare this to Martha Stewart who calmly

accepted her sentence, served it, and went back to her life.

If Paris hadn't been out driving while intoxicated in the first place, none of this would have happened. And she added insult to injury by continuing to drive with a suspended license, when it would have made much more sense to simply hire a driver or go out in a friend's car. She has no one to blame for any of this but herself.

[Horse with no Name]

16. It wasn't like she was driving her sick children to the doctor

She was going to get a freaking burger! Bet she wishes she had sent the maid now!

[nonconformist]

18. I think that is yet another aspect to this whole debacle that pisses people off

Paris Hilton doesn't NEED to drive herself anywhere. She has a large social circle and boatloads of cash. She could have easily hired a driver until she got her license back. This was not someone caught driving to their McJob that they need to survive.

[treestar]

26. That's what's so amazing! The chick doesn't have to drive!

She's so damn rich, she could send someone else or have someone drive her!

I can hardly believe she drove on a suspended license!

We have to drive to get to work. This girl does not have to work, one, and even if she did, SHE COULD JUST HIRE A LIMO!!!! That's what rich people DO!!!!!

Just goes to show no matter how rich you are, you still can end up stupid. Didn't she have the best education possible? I guess she paid no attention to it.

[Holly_Hobby]

40. She dropped out of HS

...featured a brief flirtation with the educational system, including high schooling at the ultra-exclusive Dwight School, from which she dropped out and ultimately earned her high school GED.

...

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0385296/bio

[treestar]

50. That is too amazing!

Wealthy parents rarely have that happen to their kids. I mean, look at Dubya. But it appears Paris really is an airhead.

[jazzjunkysue]

60. Lol! Dropped out of HS. Rich, pretty, lazy, and maybe stoooopid.

[AndreaCG]

34. From what I understand Martha did a lot for her fellow inmates

In terms of trying to educate them. And not just about how to crochet tea cozys!

[Posteritatis]

39. Oh? Despite myself, I'm rendered curious... (nt)

[wtmusic]

147. Yeah that Martha's a real educator

"Now, if you're getting inside info, NEVER place orders with your cellphone..."

:rofl:

[partylessinOhio]

17. So what?

Laura Welch Bush killed her lover by crashing into his car killing him dead. She was not even given a traffic citation. She never skipped a beat and went on with her miserable life.

Bush has killed hundreds of thousands, American and Iraqis.

Who did Paris hurt?

[nonconformist]

21. That's the point - teach her this is wrong BEFORE someone gets hurt

Because they easily could have been - herself or others - with her antics.

It's a damn, damn shame that the Bush's haven't paid for their crimes. A damn shame. But that doesn't mean in the least that other criminals should get away with whatever just because some other people have. The inequality lies in that everyone isn't punished for their crimes... not that because some aren't, none should be.

[partylessinOhio]

22. If Paris Hilton dies will that be punishment enough to satisfy you?

:shrug:

[BlooInBloo]

24. YAH! If she starts a nuclear war and kills everybody on the planet, will that be enough for you?

:rofl: DUers slay me.

[nonconformist]

31. Wow... you get my vote for biggest non sequitur reply of the day!

Congrats!

[hlthe2b]

32. Good, God....

A full-blown cluster of "Paris Hilton-Hysteria Syndrome" has now been fully documented. Symptoms are wild and gross exaggeration, development of straw men arguments on a scale that even Frank Lutz would find amazing, and an all-encompassing sanctimony that may well draw attention from the Vatican seeking new candidates for canonization....



:eyes:

[trumad]

35. Actually dies and someone etas her corpse.

now that's what I'm talking about!

[Madspirit]

76. I've had the same thought

Or raped. She is kept away from the general population but not from the guards. I guess there is NO bad enough for her, according to some and Hate, it turns out, is a Democratic Family Value.
Lee

[Warren Stupidity]

151. She has already been raped. It is called a full cavity search.

Every prisoner is subjected to sexual abuse and humiliation on entry into the system. The topic of her full cavity search was a source of much glee and mirth on the internets.

[Breeze54]

153. She brought the 'glee' on herself!

What's that saying? "You reap what you sow" ?

Paris Hilton's Racist New Years Part 2
http://www.ifilm.com/video/2820174

[Warren Stupidity]

155. As usual, prison sexual abuse remains acceptable aqnd a source of humor.

At what point are we going to figure out that the routine sexual abuse and humiliation that we have empowered the state to conduct and condone within the prison system is wrong, making light of it is wrong, and claiming that anyone 'asked for this' is vile?

[Breeze54]

158. I never said I agree with what the prisons do....

in that regard, although getting stabbed with a shank can't be good either.
And she didn't get a full cavity search either. More like bend over and cough.

But the people posting with glee about her situation are just taunting her
due to her previous behaviors and attitudes.

Body cavity searches have saved guards and police officers lives.
It's amazing what they'll hide up there! :crazy:

[Warren Stupidity]

161. "She brought the 'glee' on herself!"

What they find "up there" is drugs. The prison drug market is strictly controlled by the guards.

"And she didn't get a full cavity search either. More like bend over and cough."
First of all, you know this how? Secondly that is a fine example of exactly what I was talking about.

[Breeze54]

165. They do not "just" find drugs.

I've been arrested before and that's what they did.
No physical exam with a rubber glove. Just a cough.

They do not "just" find drugs. They find a lot more than that!
And even if the guards control the drug trade within the walls,
a new inmate wouldn't be involved with that.

If you have a problem with others 'glee', then
maybe you should watch that video I posted!!
She's a real piece of work. :puke:

-------------------------------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_cavity_search
A body cavity search ("booty check" in US prison slang) is either a visual search or a manual
internal inspection of body cavities for prohibited material (contraband), such as illegal drugs,
money, or weapons. It is far more invasive than the standard strip search that is typically
performed on individuals taken into custody, either upon police arrest or incarceration at a jail,
prison, or psychiatric hospital. Often the procedure is repeated when the person leaves the institution.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strip_search
A strip search is the stripping (removal of clothing, search of person and/or personal effects)
of a person to check for weapons or other contraband.

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:grgGoiZHrdQJ:www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/detention-article-300906/%24File/Body%2520searches%2520in%2520detention.pdf+contraband+in+prisons+body+searches&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=10&gl=us&client=firefox-a">Body searches in detention
Hernán Reyes, MD, Swiss Medical Association (FMH) OB/GYN specialist

Whether carried out for security reasons or to prevent illicit objects or substances
from being smuggled in or out, body searches are as closely linked to the realities
of prison life as are handcuffs or barred windows. Of course, searches are also
performed in many places outside prisons (at airports, security booths set up for
special events, entrances to certain buildings, etc.), but they all have one
important factor in common: they are carried out by security or police personnel
and not by medical staff. This article describes the various situations in prisons
requiring searches – particularly body searches – and examines exceptional
circumstances in which a doctor’s participation may be justified. It draws attention
to the guidelines for body searches drawn up for medical staff by the World
Medical Association and other bodies. Finally, it illustrates the main points
developed here with concrete examples drawn from real detention situations

This article is mainly concerned with searches performed in prisons, rather than with
those performed in other security-related contexts.
Several topics must be examined:
- the circumstances justifying various kinds of searches;
- the different types of searches performed by prison staff;
- the precise meaning of “participation of medical staff”;
- the arguments for and against such participation;
- finally, the “doctor-prisoner relationship” in such situations.

Why are searches performed?

Anyone familiar with prisons (and with prisoners) knows that searches carried out for
security reasons are justified. Prisoners all over the world try to smuggle into prison a
variety of objects for a variety of (mostly illicit) purposes. The main reason to search
prisoners is to prevent them from obtaining anything with which they could inflict
injury or other harm upon prison staff, other inmates or themselves. Mere
contraband, however, may involve items that, although prohibited, do not endanger a
prison’s security. Without going into detail, it is obvious that there are many such
items. Prison staff are on the lookout for them, since prisoners tend to use all their
ingenuity to try to overcome the ban.
Whether carried out for security reasons or to prevent illicit objects or substances
from being smuggled in or out, body searches are as closely linked to the realities
of prison life as are handcuffs or barred windows. Of course, searches are also
performed in many places outside prisons (at airports, security booths set up for
special events, entrances to certain buildings, etc.), but they all have one
important factor in common: they are carried out by security or police personnel
and not by medical staff. This article describes the various situations in prisons
requiring searches – particularly body searches – and examines exceptional
circumstances in which a doctor’s participation may be justified. It draws attention
to the guidelines for body searches drawn up for medical staff by the World
Medical Association and other bodies. Finally, it illustrates the main points
developed here with concrete examples drawn from real detention situations.

Searches conducted to enhance security must be distinguished from those
performed to prevent the introduction of contraband

[nini]

29. As someone who was disabled by a drunk driver

I can say with authority she needs to pay the price. Drunk drivers are no joke and society needs to punish them and do whatever it can to keep them from hurting innocent people.

[earth mom]

47. The issue here is that Paris must do the time-just like EVERYONE else who has been in her situation.

She must be held accountable. Or is that off the table now too in this country? :eyes:

[SOS]

58. Everyone?

Tracy Morgan was convicted twice for DWI within 11 months with blood alcohol levels much higher than Hilton:

"Tracy Morgan pleaded guilty Wednesday to a misdemeanor drunken driving charge.

Morgan submitted the plea in Manhattan Criminal Court in exchange for a conditional discharge.

Judge Ellen Coin ordered Morgan to enter a doctor-supervised alcohol program, do community service to be determined later, and avoid being arrested again within the next six months. The judge also fined Morgan $1,000 and suspended his driver's license for six months.

Morgan was stopped about 4:30 a.m. on Nov. 28, 2006. Police said he smelled of alcohol and later failed a Breathalyzer test.

On Dec. 2, 2005, Morgan was arrested in Hollywood on impaired driving charges after police stopped him for speeding. Authorities there said his blood-alcohol level was 0.13 percent, over the legal limit of 0.08 percent. He leaded no contest to a misdemeanor charge and was sentenced to 36 months' probation, fined $390 and ordered to attend an alcohol education program."

http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=2875229

No jail. Hilton should hire Morgan's lawyer.

[Kerrytravelers]

64. Then he should be punished.

I did not know about what he had done, but I find anyone who gets behind the wheel in an altered state sickening. Why should I be killed because someone else decides they are invincible and can drink and drive?

[SOS]

83. Certainly people should not drive drunk

I was just pointing out that Hilton is receiving much harsher treatment than her fellow celebrity.
Johnny Carson spent $250,000 on lawyers and made his DWI disappear completely.

[Kerrytravelers]

94. Oh, I don't think you were in any way saying drunk driving is ok.

Personally, I wish they'd come down hard on anyone who does what she did. Violating probation isn't ok, either. Why Tracey Morgan is getting a slap on the wrists is beyond me. And Johnny Caron? That is just wrong with a capital W!

[bliss_eternal]

180. I agree...

...shame on Tracy Morgan. I'm shocked at his selfishness. He's a working actor on a hit show. Surely he could afford a cab or driver for a night of partying. Heck, there's organizations that will go out and pick people up if one asks for a ride, certain times of year--so people who do this, no matter their race or gender or celebrity status get no empathy from me.

:grr::mad:

[jazzjunkysue]

112. People seldom do the time they're sentenced for. We don't have

the $$.

[dropkickpa]

113. 2 different jurisdictions

NYC and LA. His punishment in LA is almost EXACTLY the same as la Hilton's was, with the exception that he was ALSO required to wear an alcohol monitoring device. She has officially violated the driving restriction twice and has not done the classes. If/when he violates the terms of his LA probation, then they can be compared.

*edited to add - we have yet to see what will be done in NYC for his violation of that probation.

[SOS]

115. California law

This text is in every section of the law:

(D) For the purposes of this section, a conviction of any offense in any state, territory, or
possession of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, or
the Dominion of Canada that, if committed in this state, would be a violation of Section 23103, as
specified in Section 23103.5, or Section 23140, 23152, or 23153, or Section 191.5 or paragraph (3)
of subdivision (c) of Section 192 of the Penal Code, is a conviction of that particular section of the
Vehicle Code or Penal Code.

http://www.totaldui.com/pdf/dui_state_law_california.pdf

[dropkickpa]

118. Hence the addition of the acohol detection

anklet. CA cannot bring charges for the violation of out of state probation, that's up to the sentencing jurisdiction. They can only take into consideration past instances when sentencing.

[dropkickpa]

123. hence the alcohol detection anklet

in addition to the rest. CA has no jurisdiction over consequences for violating his NY probation, that's up to the NY courts. I can post CA code, too!

Driving Under Influence of Alcohol or Drugs
23152. (a) It is unlawful for any person who is under the influence of any alcoholic beverage or drug, or under the combined influence of any alcoholic beverage and drug, to drive a vehicle.
(b) It is unlawful for any person who has 0.08 percent or more, by weight, of alcohol in his or her blood to drive a vehicle.

For purposes of this article and Section 34501.16, percent, by weight, of alcohol in a person's blood is based upon grams of alcohol per 100 milliliters of blood or grams of alcohol per 210 liters of breath.

Conditions of Probation: First Conviction
23538.
(a)
(1) If the court grants probation to person punished under Section 23536, in addition to the provisions of Section 23600 and any other terms and conditions imposed by the court, the court shall impose as a condition of probation that the person pay a fine of at least three hundred ninety dollars ($390), but not more than one thousand dollars ($1,000). The court may also impose, as a condition of probation, that the person be confined in a county jail for at least 48 hours, but not more than six months.

(2) The person’s privilege to operate a motor vehicle shall be suspended by the department under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1. The court shall require the person to surrender the driver’s license to the court in accordance with Section 13550.

(3) Whenever, when considering the circumstances taken as a whole, the court determines that the person punished under this section would present a traffic safety or public safety risk if authorized to operate a motor vehicle during the period of suspension imposed under paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 13352 or Section 13352.1, the court may disallow the issuance of a restricted driver’s license required under Section 13352.4.

(b) In any county where the board of supervisors has approved, and the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs has licensed, a program or programs described in Section 11837.3 of the Health and Safety Code, the court shall also impose as a condition of probation that the driver shall enroll and participate in, and successfully complete a driving-under-the-influence program, licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code, in the driver’s county of residence or employment, as designated by the court. For the purposes of this subdivision, enrollment in, participation in, and completion of an approved program shall be subsequent to the date of the current violation. Credit may not be given for any program activities completed prior to the date of the current violation.

(1) The court shall refer a first offender whose blood-alcohol concentration was less than 0.20 percent, by weight, to participate for at least three months or longer, as ordered by the court, in a licensed program that consists of at least 30 hours of program activities, including those education, group counseling, and individual interview sessions described in Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 11836) of Part 2 of Division 10.5 of the Health and Safety Code.

(3) The court shall advise the person at the time of sentencing that the driving privilege shall not be restored until proof satisfactory to the department of successful completion of a driving-under-the-influence program of the length required under this code that is licensed pursuant to Section 11836 of the Health and Safety Code has been received in the department’s headquarters.

(c) (1) The court shall revoke the person’s probation pursuant to Section 23602, except for good cause shown, for the failure to enroll in, participate in, or complete a program specified in subdivision (b).

(2) The court, in establishing reporting requirements, shall consult with the county alcohol program administrator. The county alcohol program administrator shall coordinate the reporting requirements with the department and with the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs. That reporting shall ensure that all persons who, after being ordered to attend and complete a program, may be identified for either (A) failure to enroll in, or failure to successfully complete, the program, or (B) successful completion of the program as ordered.( )

Sentencing: Minimum Probation Conditions
23600. (a) If any person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, the court shall not stay or suspend pronouncement of sentencing, and shall pronounce sentence in conjunction with the conviction in a reasonable time, including time for receipt of any presentence investigation report ordered pursuant to Section 23655.
(b) If any person is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 and is granted probation, the terms and conditions of probation shall include, but not be limited to, the following:

(1) Notwithstanding Section 1203a of the Penal Code, a period of probation not less than three nor more than five years; provided, however, that if the maximum sentence provided for the offense may exceed five years in the state prison, the period during which the sentence may be suspended and terms of probation enforced may be for a longer period than three years but may not exceed the maximum time for which sentence of imprisonment may be pronounced.

(2) A requirement that the person shall not drive a vehicle with any measurable amount of alcohol in his or her blood.

(3) A requirement that the person, if arrested for a violation of Section 23152 or 23153, shall not refuse to submit to a chemical test of his or her blood, breath, or urine, pursuant to Section 23612, for the purpose of determining the alcoholic content of his or her blood.

(4) A requirement that the person shall not commit any criminal offense.

(c) The court shall not absolve a person who is convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 from the obligation of spending the minimum time in confinement, if any, or of paying the minimum fine imposed by law.

Penalty: Violation of Probation
23602. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this code, if a person has been convicted of a violation of Section 23152 or 23153 and the court has suspended execution of the sentence for that conviction and has granted probation, and during the time of that probation, the person is found by the court to have violated a required term or condition of that probation, the court shall revoke the suspension of sentence, revoke or terminate probation, and shall proceed in the manner provided in subdivision (c) of Section 1203.2 of the Penal Code.

California Penal Code 1203.2
(a) At any time during the probationary period of a person released on probation under the care of a probation officer pursuant to this chapter, or of a person released on conditional sentence or summary probation not under the care of a probation officer, if any probation officer or peace officer has probable cause to believe that the probationer is violating any term or condition of his or her probation or conditional sentence, the officer may, without warrant or other process and at any time until the final disposition of the case, rearrest the person and bring him or her before the court or the court may, in its discretion, issue a warrant for his or her rearrest. Upon such rearrest, or upon the issuance of a warrant for rearrest the court may revoke and terminate such probation if the interests of justice so require and the court, in its judgment, has reason to believe from the report of the probation officer or otherwise that the person has violated any of the conditions of his or her probation, has become abandoned to improper associates or a vicious life, or has subsequently committed other offenses, regardless whether he or she has been prosecuted for such offenses. However, probation shall not be revoked for failure of a person to make restitution pursuant to Section 1203.04 as a condition of probation unless the court determines that the defendant has willfully failed to pay and has the ability to pay. Restitution shall be consistent with a person's ability to pay. The revocation, summary or otherwise, shall serve to toll the running of the probationary period.

(b) Upon its own motion or upon the petition of the probationer, probation officer or the district attorney of the county in which the probationer is supervised, the court may modify, revoke, or terminate the probation of the probationer pursuant to this subdivision. The court shall give notice of its motion, and the probation officer or the district attorney shall give notice of his or her petition to the probationer, his or her attorney of record, and the district attorney or the probation officer, as the case may be. The probationer shall give notice of his or her petition to the probation officer and notice of any motion or petition shall be given to the district attorney in all cases. The court shall refer its motion or the petition to the probation officer. After the receipt of a written report from the probation officer, the court shall read and consider the report and either its motion or the petition and may modify, revoke, or terminate the probation of the probationer upon the grounds set forth in subdivision (a) if the interests of justice so require.

The notice required by this subdivision may be given to the probationer upon his or her first court appearance in the proceeding. Upon the agreement by the probationer in writing to the specific terms of a modification or termination of a specific term of probation, any requirement that the probationer make a personal appearance in court for the purpose of a modification or termination shall be waived. Prior to the modification or termination and waiver of appearance, the probationer shall be informed of his or her right to consult with counsel, and if indigent the right to secure court appointed counsel. If the probationer waives his or her right to counsel a written waiver shall be required. If probationer consults with counsel and thereafter agrees to a modification or termination of the term of probation and waiver of personal appearance, the agreement shall be signed by counsel showing approval for the modification or termination and waiver.

(c) Upon any revocation and termination of probation the court may, if the sentence has been suspended, pronounce judgment for any time within the longest period for which the person might have been sentenced. However, if the judgment has been pronounced and the execution thereof has been suspended, the court may revoke the suspension and order that the judgment shall be in full force and effect. In either case, the person shall be delivered over to the proper officer to serve his or her sentence, less any credits herein provided for.

(d) In any case of revocation and termination of probation, including, but not limited to, cases in which the judgment has been pronounced and the execution thereof has been suspended, upon the revocation and termination, the court may, in lieu of any other sentence, commit the person to the Department of the Youth Authority if he or she is otherwise eligible for such commitment.

(e) If probation has been revoked before the judgment has been pronounced, the order revoking probation may be set aside for good cause upon motion made before pronouncement of judgment. If probation has been revoked after the judgment has been pronounced, the judgment and the order which revoked the probation may be set aside for good cause within 30 days after the court has notice that the execution of the sentence has commenced. If an order setting aside the judgment, the revocation of probation, or both is made after the expiration of the probationary period, the court may again place the person on probation for that period and with those terms and conditions as it could have done immediately following conviction.

[Midlodemocrat]

69. First, Laura Bush was never charged. Should have been, but wasn't.

So that issue is moot. No one is going to bring charges against her forty years after the fact.

Secondly, Bush killing hundreds of thousands does not let people who drive drunk off the hook and frankly, I am repulsed by your argument that she doesn't deserve jail time because she didn't 'hurt' anyone.

I'll let my friend Jackie, whose husband was killed by a drunk driver, mull that over and get back to you.

[Madspirit]

75. We are a TINY minority

Thank-you. I agree with you totally but I guess I've learned a lot in the last couple of days. Hate evidently is a Democratic Family Value.

I believe in all sorts of things before I would stick ANYONE in jail. Of course most of these people have never been locked up.
Lee

[H2O Man]

23. Right.

When a court makes a determination -- such as suspending your driver's license -- and you violate that not once, but twice ..... you will have a consequence.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

27. Exactly H2O Man.

Becoming an adult means taking the consequences for your actions. Obviously Ms. Hilton wasn't taught that lesson.

I never understood why Paris Hilton become such an object of the media. To me she's an empty-headed, spoiled rich girl with absolutely no talent and quite frankly she's very average looking for a young woman her age.

As for that media "frenzy" over her this morning, give me a break. Total waste of airtime, AFAIC.

[H2O Man]

30. I remember a study

done in 1978 or '79, where over 75% of college students who were surveyed said that they would have difficulty being alone in their dorm for one week, with only books for company. This type of thing amazes me.

[mohinoaklawnillinois]

36. That was back in 1978 or '79, I'd love to know what the percentage

is now.

AFAIC, I'd rather read a good book than watch TV any day, but I come from a family of readers.

[bliss_eternal]

181. Really...? That's interesting...

...and kind of sad. :( What does this say about youth culture and the society at large?

I'm surprised by this. At that age, I adored reading. I recall setting up my week so I'd have a day alone in my college apt (san roomies), so I could read all day in peace and not be disturbed.

Wow.

[sandnsea]

53. house arrest, community service, work release

Not jail.

And she didn't violate the sentence twice, the first driving on suspended was before the sentencing. The second was right after, when she appears to not have understood her license was still suspended since she fired the lawyer in question.

[Madspirit]

73. Thank-you Sandnsea

I guess it turns out that Hate is a Democratic Family Value...
Lee

[Midlodemocrat]

77. It's not hate. It's justice.

I would bet you a ton that there are plenty of minority or poor women housed in that jail who did less to earn time there than Paris.

Maybe it's time for the idle rich to get a taste of what the poor get every day in this country. Maybe then there won't be any poor.

[Madspirit]

82. Midlo

I've been one of those poor locked up without the bucks to do anything about it. I still don't believe in jail unless there is NO ALTERNATIVE AT ALL. ...and some of the stuff I've seen in these threads is not about justice. It's about hate and vengeance....and vengeance is NEVER sated.

Here is me, Midlo:

I am a redemptionista. I believe all people can change. I believe in rehab not jail. If there has to be jails they should be places of redemption and rehabilitation, not pound-of-flesh and not places where you can learn to be even badder. They shouldn't be places where people are brutalized and raped, killed and beaten. I believe in therapy not Scared Straight. I believe in Community Service when AT ALL possible.

I don't want to send rich RWer's kids off to fight the wars either, another popular theme around here BECAUSE I don't want to send anyone's kids off to fight wars.

I don't believe in the death penalty...at all...ever.

I believe there should be medical care for all and food stamps should never run out because I believe things like a roof, utilities and the other basics are things a society should make sure everyone has. I believe in socialized medicine and I believe in wage and price controls. I think no one should ever be homeless. I believe in compassion and care for the mentally ill.

I believe in change and connection and love and peace and yes, rock and roll.

Sorry if that makes me not good enough for over here...because I don't want to put some girl's head on a stick and I don't want to rub her face in the mud, shave her head, stomp on her and see blood dripping down her face.

I guess I'm just a terrible liberal...
Lee

[Midlodemocrat]

84. I don't want anyone's child to go to war. But I would prefer it to be

a right winger's child if the RWer supported the war than my own child. I think that's justice. I don't believe in the death penalty. I've never been in jail, but I did counsel people there, so I know firsthand that it is a terrible place.

My point about Paris is that she doesn't seem to think that she should suffer the same consequences as anyone else. One of best friend's husbands was killed by a drunk driver. He was literally torn limb from limb. Two kids. His wife had to go back to a nursing schedule that didn't fit at all with raising her children because there was no one to stay with the kids now that her husband was gone. His murderer spent 6 months in jail and called her crying after 10 days begging her to ask the judge to release him because his business was suffering. :wtf: He had to be SUED into oblivion to do the right thing by the family of the man who he had killed by his reckless behavior.

Do we wait to send Paris to jail AFTER she kills someone? She is more than capable of getting a cab or hiring a driver to bring her all of life's desires. She had no business driving drunk.

I think her going to jail will send a message to all of the wealthy who think that they are above the law. They're not. And, maybe, just maybe, it will open a few eyes to the horror of the poverty stricken in this country.

[Madspirit]

96. It's not justice to send a third party to war

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be sent off to war because of my father's politics. That doesn't even verge on justice.

I don't think the nation or anyone will learn anything about poverty because of the Paris affair. I have been almost killed by a drunk driver myself. It was horrible and took years before I recovered from that wreck and I too know people who have been killed by drunken drivers. I also know that alcoholism is a disease. I know this girl is a product of her raising and that jail doesn't teach anyone anything at all. I've been there. I've been locked up. I know exactly what jail is like. I know these things and I know most of the vitriol around here about this is poisonous and depressing.

Lee

[Midlodemocrat]

104. Neither do I. But if given the choice, I sure as hell would prefer

a Bush supporter go rather than a conscientious objector.

Lee, your reasoning is flawed. You are making the assumption that she is an alcoholic and therefore a victim of a disease. If that is the case, why was she planning, (apparently) a big booze fest to celebrate her being released? Additionally, by your reasoning, anyone who has had an abortion and regretted it should have the right to prevent anyone else from having one. See what I'm getting at?

She is a product of the upbringing of narcissistic horrible parents, but that doesn't excuse her from the law. Just because she is a vapid moran doesn't allow her to skip through life endangering other people by her behavior. She is an adult, enjoying adult indulgences and now it is time to pay the piper.

And, FWIW, I DO think it will wake up some of that hard partying Hollywood, Lohan, Spears crowd to the fact that we, the people, aren't going to allow them to do anything they want because they are 'famous'.

[Madspirit]

105. I have NEVER said

I have never said she shouldn't pay. I have said I do not believe in jail time for non-violent offenders. There is no way this can be spun that will change my mind. My values and principles are across the board...not just for people I like.
Lee

[TahitiNut]

117. You don't believe Scooter Libby should be in prison?

Lying to a Grand Jury and Obstruction of Justice are "non-violent" ... and no jail time??? Sorry. Don't buy that.

[Madspirit]

120. Probably Not

If there was any more creative way to deal with him or any other non-violent offender, that would serve more to teach and change, than locking someone up would, I would always go with the "teach and change" method. Always and for everyone. I have had my freedom taken from me. I do not take lightly, taking someone else's.
Lee

[H2O Man]

128. I think that

issues regarding the "value" of incarceration are worthy of discussion/debate, in the context of non-violent crimes. I think that it also important to discuss/debate issues regarding how different socio-economic class status can result very different sentences for similar offenses. As a general rule, the system of jails and prisons in this country offers little that is positive, when compared to the negatives. I believe that most of those who make progress in their lives while incarcerated do so despite the jail/prison atmosphere, rather than as a result of it.

There are situations where being incarcerated for even a brief time can help someone take a closer look at how their behavior allows "the system" to have control over their lives. It can, at times, help individuals make a conscious effort to consider the impact of their actions on other people, and to take responsibility for the harm that they do to themselves and to others.

It is an interesting and complex set of topics. They are not black and white. You raise some valid points. Thank you for that.

[Madspirit]

129. I Thank-You

For not spewing bile on me. Seriously.

I think there is always the possibility that something really bad can happen to someone in jail. I think alternatives would have been more EFFECTIVE, for both this woman/girl/child AND for society. I would ALWAYS prefer to teach someone than to punish someone. I prefer change over punishment because...well, it's in my heart and because I have been thrashed SO much in life, I just can't stand to see someone else thrashed.

I left home at 15; I've lived on the streets; I've been locked up more than once. I suffer from bipolar disorder and from PTSD. I KNOW what jail can do to your head. It can make you want to die which is one of the reasons first-timers in jail have such a high suicide rate. You cannot even imagine, if you haven't been there, the desolation you feel inside. Most jail suicides are committed by first-timers.

So even if I was going to agree to jail, which I DO NOT, it would not be for an amount of time that to this girl, who probably has the attention span of a gnat, has said in public she cannot stand to read and who really REALLY doesn't get it, would be True Torture...I can't imagine the loneliness and anguish she probably feels. It pains me. I cannot believe that I've seen people here laugh at that, at another human's pain and then turn around and call her the sociopath...and she's going to gain absolutely nothing from this. I promise. I doubt society will either.

I have always worked around jail issues AND mental illness/health issues almost my whole life and I'm 53. I know the percentage of poor and minority who spend time in jail or are even executed, compared to the number of middle and upper class whites who commit the same or worse crimes and do no time. It makes me ill. I want to change the inequity but I would NEVER chose to change it by indulging in the situation's perversity and using a Real Human as my Scapegoat to Make a Point.

I truly do think this woman/girl/child has the mentality of a five year old. Surely a creative judge could of thought of something MORE VALUABLE TO HER AND SOCIETY than just this public humiliation, "whipping" and confinement.

...and I've always thought that "bleeding heart" did go with "liberal". It's not really a bleeding heart if it's only reserved for people you like.

Thanks for your thoughtful and non-vicious reply. It is much appreciated.

Lee

[sandnsea]

106. It comes in two flavors

The law and order centrists, and a certain brand of anarchist-lefty who makes it up as they go along. I don't care, I'm going to tell the truth as I know it.

[Midlodemocrat]

74. Nope. Jail. Maybe it's time for the idle rich to realize that their

sentences are going to be the same as the great unwashed.

I would bet you $10,000 that there are women serving time in that facility who have done less to deserve it than Paris. They're there because they are poor, or a minority.

[sandnsea]

107. How could anyone possibly do LESS

Explain it to me. What the hell is LESS than driving on a suspended license for ONE offense. What would a person sit in a jail cell for, that would be less than that. There simply isn't anything because nobody goes to jail for this petty bullshit.

[Madspirit]

108. Yup

I was reading a celeb website earlier that lists ALL the celebs who have gotten DUIS...from tv and movie people, to "personalities" like Paris, to sport's stars to politicians. Paris is serving the LONGEST sentence of any of them and there are hundreds. It is absurd.
Lee

[Midlodemocrat]

164. She drove drunk.

Point. Set. Match.

[sandnsea]

168. That's not why she's in jail

You aren't even at the court.

[treestar]

25. She couldn't order a pizza or other delivery to her house?

Or take a limo?

Or send a servant?

She is the dumbest broad on earth, rich or poor!

[damntexdem]

33. Next, maybe she can drive with a suspended psychiatrist.

Or maybe a suspended sheriff.

;-)

[RL3AO]

37. OMG! Paris is in jail?!!

I didnt hear anything on the news.

[Skidmore]

38. My guess is she was detoxing in the jail....hence her rash and

"nervous breakdown." Also she's so damned manipulative and such an attention seeking drama queen, I'm wondering if there isn't some personality disorder behind this constant acting out she does.

[nini]

42. true on the detox

I never thought of that. Hmmmmm

[AZBlue]

79. I was thinking detox too. I also wondered about a fake "breakdown" but she's not a good actress.

[Eric J in MN]

41. She was legally intoxicated, but not drunk.

She had .08 which is just above the limit.

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

[muriel_volestrangler]

44. She was weaving down the street

which, in normal use, is 'drunk'. Unable to control the vehicle properly, a danger to others.

[Connie_Corleone]

49. Considering how much she weighs, .08 is drunk for her. nt

[wtmusic]

140. Her weight is irrelevant

".08" is a percentage of her blood, she obviously has less blood than a larger person.

That said, driving 70mph in a 35mph zone without her lights on is...drunk.

[Warren Stupidity]

144. And once again the record is pretty clear.

The 70 in a 35 zone offense was not the dui offense, it was the proximate cause of her going to jail for violating the terms of her probation by driving under suspension and getting stopped for doing 70 in a 35. I am quite sure that she was tested at that stop for dui and if she had been dui she would have been charged with that as well.

None of which justifies Hilton's behavior. Once again my only question is: was her treatment the same as, better than, or worse than other people in California under similar circumstances? I have yet to see any answer that provides actual data.

[wtmusic]

146. who knows

every situation is different, and judges are people too. Paris' attitude pissed the judge off, so he gave her jail time.

Maximum penalty for a first offense driving with a suspended license is six months in jail, so 48 days hardly sounds excessive.

[Warren Stupidity]

150. Who Knows? It seems nobody actually knows.

And yet we have all sorts of opinions and it seems that we are obsessed with rich hollywood girl melt downs. I continue to be curious about the treatment Hilton has received. Normal, or abnormal? Does her celebrity status mean she gets the book thrown at her, or does it mean nothing, or does it mean she gets the kid glove treatment?

[Katherine Brengle]

55. Still illegal.b

:shrug:

[Warren Stupidity]

89. Legally intoxicate (DUI) first offense - but not what she went to jail for.

She is in jail not for DUI but for driving while suspended and by so doing violating the terms of her three year probation for the DUI. I realize this is splitting hairs, but Hilton was not put in jail for drunk driving, and the incident that lead to her going to jail was a parole violation, not another drunk driving episode.


What I still do not know is if she is being treated any differently than the average Californian under similar circumstances.

[Hippo_Tron]

45. What gets me is that it's not like she can't afford a driver, or certainly a cab

People drive drunk because they are too cheap to pony up for a cab. Paris Hilton could have a chauffeur if she wanted. She can certainly afford a cab.

[libnnc]

98. Exactly. Why the hell did she even have a driver's license

in the first place? She doesn't need to drive. She can afford a car service on call 24/7.

Stupid, stupid twit.

[bigtree]

46. she should be executed

or at least flogged and stoned

[sandrakae]

81. She should be treated like anyone else who violates their parole TWICE.

[CJCRANE]

162. You made me laugh!

(I hope that was sarcasm) :thumbsup:

The bottomline is that she has to serve her sentence, you can't just let someone out of jail because they don't like it.

[Matsubara]

48. Yeah, so now we have to HATE her.

Whatever. I don't have a problem with her jail term - she earned it. But the hostility towards this girl is ridiculous.


By the way, she FLOUTED the law, she didn't "flaunt" it.

[trumad]

51. whatever.

[Midlodemocrat]

71. The hostility towards this girl is beyond justified.

Her mother called the prosecutor 'ridiculous'. As if her wealth, the wealth she married into and did nothing to earn, other than host a ridiculous reality show where she taught the proletariat 'How to Be a Hilton', allows her daughter the option of complete disregard for the law, any law.

She is a ridiculous waste of breath and I am glad she is going back to jail before she kills someone. Her complete and wanton disregard for anyone not in her social circle is putrifying.

[Shakespeare]

85. And let's not forget about the big party they were planning for last night.

I can get a link in case anybody needs it, but as SOON as she was out on Thursday, she started planning a big, boozy bash at her place for last night. Mental issues, my ass. She's a total narcissist, and perhaps even a sociopath. The thing with her shrink is most likely a complete ruse, and it should outrage anybody with any sense of justice and decorum.

[sandnsea]

52. That's not the correct order

The first driving on suspended was BEFORE her sentencing, she may well not have even known her license was suspended. The second one was right after the sentencing, she may have thought the suspension was lifted. People do this all the time, and they don't get sent to jail for it. House arrest comes way before a jail sentence. This really is bullshit.

[onenote]

56. not exactly

Yes, the first time she was cited for driving on a suspended license was after her arrest for reckless/drunk driving, but before sentencing. However, my understanding is that the standard procedure in such arrests is for the arresting officer to confiscate the driver's license; if that happened, its hard to imagine that Hilton didn't know her license was suspended.

As for the second stop, she signed a document acknowledging that her license was supsended at the time she was stopped, and that signed document was in her glove compartment at the time of her second stop. Why, exactly, would she assume that the suspension was lifted?

I don't know whether it SOP to impose house arrest on someone who violates the terms of their probationary sentence for reckless driving in CA. But violating probation has to have some consequence or probation becomes meaningless.

[sandnsea]

57. She went to court in between

After the first suspension, she went to court for her sentencing. The sentence was dui school, fine, 3 years probation. She may well not have understood her license was still suspended since she had been to court.

In this situation, the judge would have given most people one more chance to get into the class and get it together. Jail is way way down the line for someone driving on a suspended, as long as they weren't breaking any other laws in the meantime. This really is a complete bunch of bullshit and if any DUer were treated this way, they'd all be squealing like stuck pigs about the draconian court system.

[Katherine Brengle]

54. I have no pity for her --

it was absolutely disgusting when they let her go the other day. House arrest at the Hilton's? What a load of crap.

This is a perfect example of how the rich get special treatment in this country.

[firefox_fan]

59. Let's say it it's for her own good. She needs to learn a lesson.

If she killed somebody while driving drunk, then we'd be talking years in prison...

[Avalux]

66. I don't give a damn about Paris. I give a damn about her potential victims.

It doesn't matter who she is; she was arrested for driving drunk and even after that, broke the law. She belongs in jail and hopefully the experience will be traumatic enough so she NEVER gets behind the wheel after drinking again.

[Midlodemocrat]

68. Exactly. And perhaps the wealthy and privileged will see that they, too

have to be held accountable and can't get off because of who they are or what they've done.

:hi: Good to see you!

[Avalux]

121. Good to see you too!

I haven't been around as much as I to be - life got in the way I guess, lol. I still read a lot and post when I have a chance. Love your sig line. :hug:

[robinlynne]

67. no, she was driving DRUNk on a suspended license. not just driving on a suspended

license.
the reason that amkes a difffernce, is because other people could have been hurt/killed.

my 2cents.

[Warren Stupidity]

90. Not according to the court filings.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton43007mot.html


"Prosecutors’ Motion To Revoke Paris Hilton’s Probation
People of the State of Calif. v. Paris Whitney Hilton April 30, 2007 Email This
Page 1 of 16


Lawyers

Richard Hutton, Hilton’s Defense Lawyer
One of Hilton’s Defense Firms
L.A. City Attorney's Office
Prosecutor Ellen Sarmiento
Prosecutor Dan Jeffries
DUI Defense Lawyers
Related Links:
Paris Hilton's DUI Charges
Probation and Parole: The Difference
Defending DUI Charges


Arguing that "

robation is a privilege and not a right," Los Angeles prosecutors filed this motion to revoke Paris Hilton's probation stemming from her September 27, 2006 DUI charges. Hilton pleaded no contest in January 2007 to reckless driving charges stemming from the incident. A judge sentenced her to 3 years of probation, ordered her mandatory attendance at an alcohol education program, and that she pay fines of $1,500.

But according to prosecutors, Hilton violated at least three terms of her probation. First, she failed to enroll in an alcohol education course within 21 days of her sentencing.

Second, she had several traffic violations after receiving probation. On February 27, 2007, she was stopped by L.A. Sheriff Deputies for driving “a new Bentley” at 70 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone “in darkness without her headlights on,” and without a valid driver’s license. Hilton’s license had been suspended by California&rsquos; Department of Motor Vehicles in November 2006 for having an "Excessive Blood Alcohol Level.”

Finally, prosecutors argued, Hilton failed to "obey all laws and orders of the Court," another condition of her probation.

On May 4, 2007, a judge sentenced Hilton to 45 days in jail for violating the terms of her probation."

The indlaw summary does not indicate a second DUI offense.

[LisaL]

95. She did not enroll in a class she was supposed to.

And driving without a valid license? Yep, she is totally harmless, never mind some innocent person that could have gotten in a way of her car.

[Warren Stupidity]

97. So then you agree that there was only one DUI.

70 in a 35 is bad. I hate it when people speed down my road.

The question I have is has Ms. Hilton been treated worse than, the same as, or better than the average Californian under similar circumstances?

[LisaL]

99. I never claimed there was two DUI.

You are confusing me with someone else.
As for Ms. Hilton been treated differently-was she ever treated like everyone else? Why start now?

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

70. Me and sibs, head on crash by drunk driver, killed my brother

Needless to say, no sympathy from me. Especially after her arrogance in the courtroom. By sheer luck no one was in her drunken path, but untold numbers of people were split seconds from death and mayhem had their paths shifted ever so slightly. Drunk driving is not a petty crime just because no one was hurt. Thanks, trumad, for being a voice of sanity.

[Midlodemocrat]

72. Exactly. And, I am very sorry for your loss.

One of my best friends lost her husband to a drunk driver. The drunk walked away from the scene, served 6 months of an 18 month sentence and had to be sued for retribution.

I'm sorry. The drunk driving laws in this country are fucked up. And, I think it is because most people who are sitting on the jury feel as though 'there but for the Grace of God goes me'.

Paris is lucky she didn't kill anyone. A lot of people who have driven drunk in their lives can make that claim. Some can't.

[shireen]

78. i am so sorry for your loss

it's tragic and senseless to lose a loved one due to the stupidity of another person.

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

93. Thank you, Midlodemocrat and shireen

That was many years ago, before MADD and the tighening of the DUI laws. Believe it or not, the laws are better than they were. :)

[Warren DeMontague]

110. A good friend of mine was killed by a drunk driver, too.

I'm very sorry for your loss. Absolutely it is the sort of thing society needs to take very seriously.

[RebelOne]

184. I have had two family members killed by drunk drivers.

I was only 10 years old when my stepfather and his passenger were killed by a drunken off-duty policeman. Then, my daughter's husband was killed by a drunk who ran up on the sidewalk where he was walking, hit him and then dragged him down the road. He was only 28.

[Warren Stupidity]

88. So does anyone have any data that shows

if Ms Hilton is being treated better, the same, or worse than the average Californian under similar circumstances? I've tried to figure that particular data point out, wasted at least ten minutes of my life on it, ten minutes that I will never again get back, and came up with nothing.

Meanwhile: she is not in jail for drunk driving. She is in jail for driving while suspended, which is a fairly common offense but is not the crime of drunk driving. Use the emotional crutch of drunk driving here is just a deliberate attempt to confuse the issue.

[LisaL]

92. She is in jail for violating her probation.

Why was she put on probation?
So, trying to claim she is jail for driving while suspended is an attempt to confuse the issue.

[Warren Stupidity]

100. I don't think so.

She is in jail for violating the terms of her probation, specifically for driving while suspended, for failing to enter a alcohol program, and for assorted traffic violations while driving suspended.

Look at it this way: had she not violated the terms of her probation she would not be in jail at all. As far as I can tell, hardly anybody in California is sent to jail for a first offense DUI. Consequently it has to be something else she did, something other than the original DUI charge that sent her to jail.

But to be fair here, I'm ok with Hilton going to jail if that is the normal procedure for people who act the way she has acted. I am not defending her behavior, I simply do not know what the normal treatment of DUI probation violators is in California, nor it seems does anyone else.

[LisaL]

102. Well, if she hadn't driven with her alcohol level of 0.08

then she would have not gotten her probation.
Her license would have not been suspended.
And thus she would not have been put in jail.
So, why is she in jail again?

[Warren Stupidity]

125. For violating her probation. nt.

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

101. I'm interested in that data point too

She should of course be treated like anyone else in similar circumstances.

And I'm no expert on the law or on this case, but it seems to me that a judge would determine a penalty based on the entire chain of crimes that led to this point, and include past criminal history in determining sentence. (Any court experts out there?) The charge of driving on a suspended license does not exist in a vacuum. Something led to that suspended license. And I would think that probation went along with that suspended license. Furthermore, when you have the attitude that court appearances are optional and sass off to the judge, you can't expect any leniency.

I don't wish to see her suffer, and I'll admit a twinge of compassion when I saw her crying, but the rich and beautiful should be treated the same as the rest of us. And if that means jail, so be it.

[LisaL]

103. Here. This details the whole story of how she ended up in jail and

why.
http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton43007mot.html

[durrrty libby]

116. After reading that, I honestly wonder how such an air-head

ever got a license in the first place

It is scary sharing the road with people like her.


:scared: :scared: :scared:

[Warren Stupidity]

124. Yes fine but it does not answer the question: normal treatment or not?

Lots of people get arrested every DAY for dui, lots of people violate their probations by driving under suspension, and they get caught for that because they are too stupid to not violate traffic laws while driving under suspension and on probation for DUI. This is a common event.

The question is: do those people who are not Paris Hilton go to jail or do the go home or do they get 3 years in the slammer?

Nobody seems to have an answer.

[Breeze54]

133. They go to jail!

At least they do in MA but also in other states.

MASSACHUSETTS OUI/DUI LAW - FIRST OFFENSE PENALTY

* Jail: Not more than 2 1/2 years House of Correction
* Fine: $500-$5,000
* License suspended for 1 year; work/education hardship considered in 3 months;
general hardship in 6 months

PH was arrested for DUI but it was reduced to DUI-Reckless Driving. :eyes:
She violated probation twice by getting caught twice driving on a suspended.
The paper work saying that she was not to drive was in her glove compartment.
The way it was explained by a defense attorney on Good Morning America today
was that the judge had discretion and it looks like the 40 days is divided
between the two probation violations. Approx. 20 days each. She has served
5 days of the original 45, which was reduced to 23 days before her first release.
The sheriff does have the discretion to count time served. I suspect she'll be
out in a week or so... I doubt she'll do the full 40 days. She'll survive.
In my book, she's getting off really easy!!

===============================

http://www.madrunkdrivingdefense.com/drunk-driving.htm

MASSACHUSETTS OUI/DUI LAW - FIRST OFFENSE PENALTY

* Jail: Not more than 2 1/2 years House of Correction
* Fine: $500-$5,000
* License suspended for 1 year; work/education hardship considered in 3 months; general hardship in 6 months

Alternative Disposition (1st Offense OUI)

* Plead to Continuance without a Finding.
* Pay a number of fines and court fees, as well as take a hit to your insurance.
* Unsupervised Probation for one year.
* Mandatory participation in alcohol-drug education program paid for by defendant
* License suspended for 45 to 90 days (not including any penalty for breath test refusal)
* License suspension is 210 days for drivers under age 21
* Eligible for a hardship license right away, in most cases.

The real deal: The minimum penalty (Alternative Disposition, above) is almost always available
for a first offense DUI plea, if your lawyer knows what he is doing, and as long as there is
no accident, injury, or other extenuating circumstances.


MASSACHUSETTS OUI LAW - SECOND OFFENSE PENALTY

* Jail: Not less than 60 days (30 day mandatory), not more then 2 1/2 years
* Fine: $600-$10,000
* License suspended for 2 years, work/education hardship considered in 1 year;
general hardship in 18 months.
(Note: In almost every case, with a breath test refusal or failure you won't be
eligible for a hardship or full license restoration for at least 3 years total.)
* As of January 1, 2006 - Interlock device installed in your car at your own expense for 2 years,
when you become eligible for hardship or license reinstatement.

Alternative Disposition (2nd Offense OUI)

* 2 years probation
* 14 day confined (inpatient) alcohol treatment program paid for by the defendant
* License suspended for two years, work/education hardship considered in 1 year;
general hardship in 18 months.
* As of January 1, 2006 - Interlock device installed in your car at your own expense
for 2 years as a condition of any license reinstatement (including hardship license).
* If your prior offense is over 10 years ago, you may be eligible for a 24D disposition,
which would only be the penalties of a first offense. The Registry, however, would still
treat you as a 2nd offender for license reinstatement.

The real deal:
You can also usually negotiate for the Alternative Disposition For any second offense
OUI conviction, even if the prior is in another state, or decades old, you will be forced
to get an interlock device installed in your car as a condition of license reinstatement.
The Registry is harsh on this point, and there is nothing any lawyer can do about it.
If you are facing a 2nd offense, this is a good reason to strongly consider fighting the case.


MASSACHUSETTS OUI/DWI LAW THIRD OFFENSE (3rd) Penalty

* Jail: Not less than 180 days (150 day mandatory), not more than 5 years State Prison
(felony status)
* May be served in a prison treatment program
* Fine $1,000-$15,000
* License suspended for 8 years, work/education hardship considered in 2 years;
general hardship in 4 years
* Commonwealth may seize, keep, and/or sell your vehicle.

Note: For any third offense OUI conviction, you are facing a mandatory 5-6 months in jail
if found guilty. For a 3rd offense charge, this is a good reason to fight the case and look
for a chance to win and avoid jail time.

MASSACHUSETTS OUI LAW FOURTH OFFENSE (4th) Penalties

* Jail: Not less than 2 years (1 year minimum mandatory), not more than 5 years (felony status)
* Fine $1,500-$25,000
* License suspended for 10 years, work/education hardship considered in 5 years; general hardship
in 8 years

http://www.california-drunkdriving.org/drivers_license_suspensions.html

[Warren Stupidity]

142. More non-evidence.

1) you are citing Mass law not CA.
2) the issue is not what are the penalties, but what is the practice?

I looked and could find no statistics regarding this. If you have some actual data, I'd love to see it.

[Marrah_G]

185. And now we have Melanie's Law

Before recently someone who killed someone while driving drunk could not have past dui convictions considered in sentencing. The asshole that ran over my 14 year old cousin on cape cod while he was riding a bike with friends, took off to leave him to die and then hid out until he could pass a sobriety test and then turned himself in. He had a large number of previous DUI's and reckless driving but they couldn't take any of it into consideration.

He won't serve more then 2 years for taking the life of a child and destroying a family. Fortunately that has changed now, it was just 1 year too late.

[dansolo]

141. She wasn't just driving on a suspended license

She was caught speeding (70mph in a 35mph zone), at night, without her headlights on. Why do her defenders keep ignoring that fact? If she was merely driving on a suspended license, then I'm not sure her penalty would have been as severe.

[Warren Stupidity]

143. I am not ignoring it.

And once again, the question I keep asking is: is Ms Hilton being treated the same as, better than, or worse than other people in California under similar circumstances. Nobody seems to have an answer to that question, just lots of opinions about how horriblke a crime this is, or how obviously the little rich girl is getting preferential treatment. I have yet to see any data at all that relates to the fairness of her treatment.

[LisaL]

148. Judge was well within his rights to impose that sentence on her.

[Warren Stupidity]

149. Absolutely correct.

So do you happen to know if this is the normal procedure?

[Breeze54]

152. You really should make an effort to

do some research yourself! Try reading the 1000's and 1000's of comments at TMZ.com concerning the Paris Trainwreck.

http://www.tmz.com/2007/06/09/paris-on-peril/1#comments

Many there commenting are from LA and have had much longer sentences for the same 3rd offense!

Paris was charged with OUI-Reckless and then proceeded to violate her probation twice by driving on a suspended.

She's being incarcerated for TWO OFFENSES!! NOT ONE!!!!

This isn't a hard time sentence at all, from what the CA. law and others who have experienced the same are saying.

[Warren Stupidity]

156. So I waded though the first five pages and found no data.

Once again, what are the actual facts? Nobody seems to know. If you have actual data rather than 'look through these 1000's of posts and somebody says they got it worse', please do provide it.

Oh and to be clear, I did first spend some time searching for ACTUAL DATA and came up with nothing. If you don't have any data either, please don't waste my time pointing me at some other idiotic thread full of opinions and attitude untainted by real facts.

[Breeze54]

159. What actual "data" are you needing??

I really don't get it! Every case is determined on a case by case basis.

Her case was judged and she was incarcerated. A second time.

So what? She shouldn't have been out the first time!!

There were lawyers from LA and people that had been incarcerated in LA for the same
offense saying that her being there for 23 days or 40 days is NOT unusual at all.
And in fact, they said it was lenient, as she could've been looking at 2 years!!

[Warren Stupidity]

160. Anecdotes are not facts, nor are posters claiming to be lawyers

particularly credible. So facts would be actual statistics on sentencing for similar crimes. That way we could actually have a fact based discussion regarding the treatment of Hilton. If most people get similar treatment, she should shut up. If most people get worse treatment, we should be outraged. If most people get more lenient treatment, she has a valid complaint. Justice ought to be blind, right?

[Breeze54]

163. I gave you two links with all that info upthread!

Perhaps you should follow that trail!

Go to the CA crime statistics pages and look for the info!

Try the National Crime Statistics websites!

Or just try a google search...
'incarceration for second offense driving suspended on uoi probation'

Search the CA RMV website

Try www.findlaw.com

Posters claiming to be lawyers gave links and e-mail addresses
and their full names and what they wrote was concise and intelligent.
Seemed right on the money.

Here... try this... CA Legal Firm that handles cases like PH's.

Drunk Driving - Administrative Per Se (A.P.S.) Hearings
http://www.attorney-criminal-dui.com/dmv-license-suspensions.htm#negligent

Web Links

California DMV – Vehicle Code (A very lengthy document – you may wish to use the “Search” function of the main DMV site)
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/vctop/vcpdf/vehcode.pdf

Traffic School Location List
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/forms/ol/ol745.pdf

DMV - California Department of Motor Vehicles - General Information -
916-657-0214
http://www.dmv.ca.gov

California DMV - Driver Handbook -
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/driver_handbook_toc.htm

California DMV Offices - http://www.dmv.ca.gov/fo/regions/california.htm

California DMV - Driver Handbook - Actions Resulting in Loss of License
- Drinking / Driving or Boating - "Some Basic Facts"
http://www.dmv.ca.gov/pubs/hdbk/2002dl600toc6.htm

DMV - Driver License Suspension - Disclaimer

The DMV, Driver License Suspensions, Drivers License Revocations, DMV hearing, revoked license, negligent operator, reckless driving, drunk driving, or other legal defense information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice, nor the formation of a lawyer or attorney client relationship. Our law firm encourages you to seek independent counsel for legal advice regarding your individual legal issues, including drivers license suspension, driver license revocations, DMV hearing, negligent operator, drunk driving, and reckless driving. Any results portrayed here were dependant on the facts of that case and the results will differ if based on different facts.

READ THIS POST (right above you!) ;)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=1072130&mesg_id=1079970

[Breeze54]

169. She caused her probation to be revoked and now the original punishment stands.

Prosecutors’ Motion To Revoke Paris Hilton’s Probation

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton92606cmp.html">People of the State of Calif. v. Paris Whitney Hilton;April 30, 2007

[Warren DeMontague]

111. So.. just out of curiosity, does this mean we'll start putting EVERYONE who drives with no license

in jail?

Because where I live, people driving without licenses and driving on suspended licenses are responsible for a LOT of accidents.

[wtmusic]

119. We can start with those driving 70 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone,

in darkness without their headlights on. A wonder she hasn't killed anyone.

[Warren DeMontague]

135. Sounds like we have, since she's going to jail. But my question is, when someone in, say, LA

causes an accident, and is driving with on a suspended license- or with no drivers license, and no insurance, I have to assume that the righteous indignation being shown towards Paris Hilton would apply to that person as well..

...right? I mean, the judge should throw the book at that person. No mercy.

...right?

[wtmusic]

139. Throw the book?

Maximum penalty for driving on a suspended license in CA is 6 months in jail. Paris was shown considerable mercy.

[Warren DeMontague]

154. I think a lot of people don't go to jail at all for driving on a suspended.

But I just want to be clear- you're saying that ANYONE who drives on a suspended license or with no license should be sent to jail. Period. Maybe for 45 days, or 25 days, or whatever Paris Hilton is sentenced to-- but they SHOULD GO TO JAIL.

Right?

[wtmusic]

170. No

Paris said her DUI was "nothing", she tried to blame her ignorance of her suspension on her handlers, and she blew off a court appearance.

Not just anyone. Paris is special. :eyes:

[Warren DeMontague]

177. Okay. So it depends on what the person driving with no license SAYS.

What if that person doesn't speak English?

[wtmusic]

182. Then the court will provide a translator

and yes, it is completely up to the judge to determine whether the guilty party is repentant or thumbing their nose at the system, and adjust their sentence accordingly. All as it should be.

[Marrah_G]

186. If they break probation twice while doing it then yes.

[Xenotime]

122. It's no reason to go to jail

[trumad]

126. No---but this is...

But according to prosecutors, Hilton violated at least three terms of her probation. First, she failed to enroll in an alcohol education course within 21 days of her sentencing.

Second, she had several traffic violations after receiving probation. On February 27, 2007, she was stopped by L.A. Sheriff Deputies for driving “a new Bentley” at 70 m.p.h. in a 35 m.p.h. zone “in darkness without her headlights on,” and without a valid driver’s license. Hilton’s license had been suspended by California&rsquos; Department of Motor Vehicles in November 2006 for having an "Excessive Blood Alcohol Level.”

Finally, prosecutors argued, Hilton failed to "obey all laws and orders of the Court," another condition of her probation.

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/ent/cahilton43007mot.html

How many f'ing chances does this knucklehead get?

[NashVegas]

130. Bullshit

I have an acquaintance who got his first (and only) DUI and was forced to spend several weekends in jail. He was allowed to keep it to weekends because on weekdays he had a job to get to, and he was allowed to drive to and home from work ONLY. Had he been caught driving for any other reason, he'd have served straight jail time.

If Paris had an actual job she may have been able to get something like that; but she still would have wound up in jail for driving outside of license restrictions.

[LisaL]

She didn't need to drive at all-with her money she could easily

pay someone to drive her around.
And now she is crying because she doesn't like jail.
Well, if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

[Blue_In_AK]

127. In Alaska she would have gotten 10 days in jail

the first time she was pulled over after losing her license. The second time it would have been 30, I believe. I think the judge hit her pretty hard, but maybe a dose of reality will do her some good.

[Warren Stupidity]

157. And are those sentences imposed automatically on conviction?

Hilton got a 36 month sentence - only it was probation not prison - for her first DUI. What nobody seems to know is what is the typical treatment in California, a point I am now completely tired of making.

[Blue_In_AK]

176. 36 months for a first DUI is excessive, IMO

Here you get 30 days for your first, with 27 suspended, unless they've changed the law recently. Things get a lot more serious with your second.

[nolabels]

131. People who drive drunk should lose their license forever

No ifs, ands, or buts. There is no good reason for them to drive drunk other than contempt for the law. If someone cannot handle their alcohol then they shouldn't be drinking, period, end of story.

[Madspirit]

137. Wow...a Self-Described Holy Person

EVERYONE used to drive after drinking. "One for the road" is not a new expression. You should go check the poll where I asked if anyone had driven with over the legal limit in their bodies. Over 70% have said "yes". The roads would be bare if one mistake was all it took. It would cripple the country. THE MAJORITY of people have, at some time, driven with over the legal limit in their bodies. Go check the stats at the DOJ or google or actually crack a book about the history of alcoholism and alcohol use in this country and in the world. What a simplistic approach to a complicated issue. There is a much better way to handle the DISEASE that is alcoholism, than to penalize someone for the rest of their lives, particularly someone willing to and desiring to...sober up and change. ...and not nearly everyone who has EVER made this grievous mistake and driven while over the limit is an alcoholic.

As far as your holy dictum that if someone cannot handle alcohol they shouldn't drink at all....well, as long as they aren't driving and as long as they aren't publicly intoxicated...IT'S NOT REALLY ANY OF YOUR FUCKING BUSINESS, IS IT?
Lee

[nolabels]

138. Sorry my dead brother and two other people that got killed in his collision..........

were helping me speak up. Prevention of fatal accidents is always about planing ahead. There are facilitators and preventer's in a drunk drivers life you sound like the prior. I have also heard that excuse of it's nobodies business but that does not work unless you live in the wilderness all by yourself. Sooner or later the drunken rage takes over no matter how gentle the persons temperament. When a person explains to themselves how much more superior as compared to all the rest, the fall from grace is not much farther.


I offered a concise answer to a complex problem. To agree or not is okay and reason why or why not any idea could be useful or not is also possible.

I think the idea of giving a person multiple chances to reform is not help but a cop-out to weakness, it is human nature but also is a weakness. Everybody knows jumping off a cliff to a long drop gives no second chances and chances of them surviving are also small. With the same idea the chances of someone jumping off that cliff on purpose thinking they might survive is also very small. They are strong because they know how they are weak and so they don't jump off the cliff. By giving people multiple chances to endanger themselves and others because they are incoherent is almost like encouraging suicide. People that like to perform dangerous things and be good at it seem mostly to like to do it in a cogent state (well at least that's the way I have mostly observed them doing it).

My insinuation is people that get that drunk often think they can do things that they barely can do when they are sober. My definition of a person that can't handle his stuff is like that guy that just got killed who played professional baseball. He probably could have did a lot of things but drive drunk he was never going master in this life

Cards' Hancock was drunk, talking on cell
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18381071/

[bliss_eternal]

179. I'm very sorry for your loss.

:hug:

[bettyellen]

145. you're quoting a DU POLL AS A STATSTIC? LOL, what have you been drinking?

actually, many of us plan better when we drink- and don't want sainthood fot it, maybe the prospect of acidentally maiming or killing someone just to save cab fare doesn't bother you- but some of us are are able toplan ahead.
what's your excuse? just feeling lucky everytime you get some booze in you?

[Madspirit]

166. FY

I've been sober for 15 years. DO NOT JUDGE ME BECAUSE I BELIEVE IN ALTERNATIVE SENTENCING AND THINGS THAT REALLY WORK. I've been involved in jail reform for a long, long time. Pound-of-flesh doesn't bring back the dead and doesn't stop the drunk from drinking and driving. There are things that do work.
Lee

[Madspirit]

167. ...and PS

If you don't like DU stats...go to the DOJ...look at their stats. If EVERYONE who had ever driven drunk...EVER...lost their license for forever...the world would come to a standstill. Actually use your brain not your emotions, to judge this.
Lee

[bettyellen]

171. um, DU polls are not stats by any stretch of the imagination...

and if people really have to drink and commute- which seems to be your bizarre premise- there are ways to do it without being behind a wheel.
if a person can fucking deal with life responisibly, i could give two shits if their world- as they chose to live in it- comes to a screeching end in a jail. they should have moved some place with public transportation or fucking got on the wagon when they realized that their buzz was more important than human life.
i'm happy you got sober, but driving is not some sort of inalieanable right, get over it.

[Name removed]

172. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

173. "the world coming to an end" is melodramitic bullshit and YOU referred to the DU poll as a stat

i was just correcting that assertion.
i know a lot of alkies like to think the world will come to an end if they can;'t do whatever the fuck they want. but they can spare me their drama. it's just not true. our lives would go on. their lives might be diminished, but just like they felt went they got behind the wheel, i totally do not give a fuck what happens. Comprehend that? Not all drinkers drive, that's bullshit YOU made up.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted message

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

[bettyellen]

175. "EVERYONE USED TO DRIVE AFTER DRINKING" i would pity your enabling bullshit

but really i have had enough. if you can't discuss things ith out resorting to petty insults and SHOUTING then you are out of control,
and in my book, not worth the effort.
"EVERYONE USED TO DRIVE AFTER DRINKING" LOL- no, like children, that's what the drinkers all said when confronted by people who were more responsible. doesn't make it so.

[Madspirit]

178. That was hyperbole

What I meant was that it used to be commonplace. IF YOU DO NOT BELIEVE THAT, GO READ ABOUT IT. Paris did not invent "one for the road". You should read the stats from the 40s and 50s and 60s before they started cracking down on it. That's what I meant and IF you had read all the other things I've said, you would know that. CONTEXT.

...but you're right. I think all people who drink should drink and drive. In fact, I don't think people should be able to drive at all UNLESS they are drunk. I even think people should have to smoke crack while they drive and that all new cars should come with a crack pipe built right in, next to the little tiny fridge that holds their beers and whiskey. Yup...context...it's important. ...for people who CARE what they are reading.
Lee

[LostinVA]

183. I have to disagree with you here, Lee

I had a friend killed by a drunk driver. I have another friend whose friend has had over ten DUIs and still drives on a suspended license. It's crazy. ANYONE who drives drunk should have their license and vehicle taken away for at least a year. Two DUIs should make it permanent.

And, even as a child, my mother never let my father drive drunk. Everyone hasn't always done it.

It's not a morality issue, it's a public safety issue.