The Paris Hilton Fiasco Threads Merged

[Spider-Bite]

Actually, I wasn't the one that said he could have extended her sentence. But, guess what? He could have. Technically she was in violation of her parole when she left the jail, regardless of whether the Sheriff released her or not. It's not unconstitutional for the judge to amend her sentence and add time to it as a result if he wanted to (though it would probably get thrown out on appeal, more than likely). But he didn't do that. He just reinstated the full term of her original sentence, taking away the commuting of days.

What the hell are you even talking about, here? There's not a sliding scale for HOW drunk you are when you get a DWI. If you get a DWI, you get a DWI. Yes, they'll note in your record your blood alcohol level at the time of arrest, but it doesn't make it any lesser of a charge. You're the one who keeps arguing that the judge gave her way more time on her sentence than he should have, citing that other people have done the same thing as Paris and not gotten as much time. It's simply been pointed out (times infinity) that the judge has discretion here, and is regulated only by the minimum and maximum sentence guidelines. I'm saying the same thing I've always been saying, here. Perhaps you're just now beginning to understand my point.



The decision on sentencing and what amount of time an inmate will serve lies with the courts. Not the law enforcement agencies. Courts decide on how the laws will be upheld and enforced. The police and Sheriff's departments enforce the laws as ordered by the courts. It's the same in every state in that regard.



Now you are being daft. I did not state there is a one size fits all punishment for any given crime. I said there are minimum and maximum guidelines that the judge has full discretion to sentence within. It could range from a completely commuted sentence with no time served to a maximum time served with no chance of early release. There is a difference between the two. Don't be dense.



Are you serious? I even gave you an example of someone who got an even harsher sentence than her for a lesser crime, and he's a nobody as far as the general public is concerned. I think you're going out of your way to try and find some sort of special mistreatment by the legal system of Paris that's just not there. She committed a crime, violated her parole TWICE and showed outward contempt for the judge over and over again. She's lucky she didn't get more time than she has.

jag

I think your twisting stuff now. You said you gave me an example of somebody getting a harsher sentence for a lesser crime, and refused to get into priors or blood alcohol level.

You and I both know a judge is going to give somebody a harsher sntences if they are several times the legal limit, than he would give somebody right at it.

In addition mouthing off to the cops can have an impact as well, on sentencing.

Your lying about L.A. law. the law says the opposite of what your saying it does.

And really for most of this post, and your last few, I feel that you are just pulling stuff out of air, and twisiting around what I said, and twisting reality, lying, and assuming. Your being insulting, and either you never worked in the courts, or you got fired for not understanding law, or your simply lying about your experiences while working in the courts. And I doubt it's the last one.

 

[Legendary108]

I think your twisting stuff now. You said you gave me an example of somebody getting a harsher sentence for a lesser crime, and refused to get into priors or blood alcohol level.

You and I both know a judge is going to give somebody a harsher sntences if they are several times the legal limit, than he would give somebody right at it.

In addition mouthing off to the cops can have an impact as well, on sentencing.

Your lying about L.A. law. the law says the opposite of what your saying it does.

And really for most of this post, and your last few, I feel that you are just pulling stuff out of air, and twisiting around what I said, and twisting reality, lying, and assuming. Your being insulting, and either you never worked in the courts, or you got fired for not understanding law, or your simply lying about your experiences while working in the courts. And I doubt it's the last one.

I've never seen a man this clueless in my life.

 

[Drakon]

I didn't know a ham sandwich could come out of my nose til now. But now you're banned for trying to kill me!


Seriously, though. GREAT one.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Hours after the event, Hilton checked herself into jail and was expected to serve only 23 days because of a state law that requires shorter sentences for good behavior.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19142010/

where were you on that one mister lawyer? calling me daft for stating what the law says.

Baca charged that Hilton received a more severe sentence than normal, which he said would have been either no time in jail or being directly placed in home confinement with electronic monitoring.

Now this sheriff might be in trouble for taking bribes, but he also knows a thing or two about the law, and absolutely nobody in the media has denied even one time this statement! We can all make claims about personal experiences, but we can also lie. the only thing credible would be a link showing that somebody who knows about law, disagreed with this statement.

 

[Badger]

Badger. links, please or stop w/the BS. I can't give you a link to what I saw on the news last night. It was a television. You want links to what was said previously in the debate here? Look on the last few previous pages.

You think I'm lying? Start watching the news. I'm sure it will get covered.

I have been and so have other's (See Below)

I watch CNN and nothing of what you've said has been covered =/

 

[Legendary108]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19142010/

where were you on that one mister lawyer? calling me daft for stating what the law says.

Thats for someone who isn't in violation of their parole.

Circumstances are severely different in her case. She violated probation...TWICE.

Stop being ignorant dude.

 

[jaguarr]

I think your twisting stuff now. You said you gave me an example of somebody getting a harsher sentence for a lesser crime, and refused to get into priors or blood alcohol level.

You and I both know a judge is going to give somebody a harsher sntences if they are several times the legal limit, than he would give somebody right at it.

In addition mouthing off to the cops can have an impact as well, on sentencing.

Your lying about L.A. law. the law says the opposite of what your saying it does.

And really for most of this post, and your last few, I feel that you are just pulling stuff out of air, and twisiting around what I said, and twisting reality, lying, and assuming. Your being insulting, and either you never worked in the courts, or you got fired for not understanding law, or your simply lying about your experiences while working in the courts. And I doubt it's the last one.

So far your argument has consisted of "I think you're wrong", "I think you're lying" or "I think I heard something different on the news even though I can't back any of my positions up with any links".

I haven't changed my argument at all over the course of this discussion. I DO think, however, that your understanding what has been said has changed over the course of it (though I don't think you truly grasp what's being said to you regarding the legal system). If you misunderstand what's being discussed in this thread, that's your folly. You're getting insulted because you began calling me a liar. Just because you don't understand my argument doesn't make it any less correct. Others in this thread have corroborated what I have stated. You're the only one who seems to have difficulty with the concepts myself and others have put out there for discussion.

jag

 

[jaguarr]

Thats for someone who isn't in violation of their parole.

Circumstances are severely different in her case. She violated probation...TWICE.

Stop being ignorant dude.

Exactly.

jag

 

[Legendary108]

the only thing credible would be a link showing that somebody who knows about law, disagreed with this statement.

"I'm dead, but I disagree".

 

[Badger]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19142010/

where were you on that one mister lawyer? calling me daft for stating what the law says.




Now this sheriff might be in trouble for taking bribes, but he also knows a thing or two about the law, and absolutely nobody in the media has denied even one time this statement! We can all make claims about personal experiences, but we can also lie. the only thing credible would be a link showing that somebody who knows about law, disagreed with this statement.

Also from article:

Friday’s hearing was requested by the city attorney’s office, which had prosecuted Hilton and wanted Sheriff Lee Baca held in contempt for deciding to reassign Hilton to home detention despite Sauer’s express order that she must serve her time in jail.

Sauer gave no explanation of his ruling to return Hilton back to jail, but his comments throughout the hearing indicated he was affronted by Baca’s decision to set aside his instructions and release the celebutante to her Hollywood Hills home.
“I at no time condoned the actions of the sheriff and at no time told him I approved the actions,” he said. “At no time did I approve the defendant being released from custody to her home on Kings Road.”

Also, while Baca may know the law, he does not make or set it. He only enforces it (i.e. does what he's told).

 

[Spider-Bite]

Despite being ordered to serve the remainder of her original 45-day sentence, Hilton could still be released early. Inmates are given a day off their terms for every four days of good behavior, and her days in home detention counted as time served.

I thought the hype's own personal legal consultant claimed the judge could take away her good behavior time?

Hours after the event, Hilton checked herself into jail and was expected to serve only 23 days because of a state law that requires shorter sentences for good behavior.

 

[Spider-Bite]

Thats for someone who isn't in violation of their parole.

Circumstances are severely different in her case. She violated probation...TWICE.

Stop being ignorant dude.

Link please?

And don't call me ignorant. I didn't write the law. I simply posted a link showing what the law says.

 

[Jerry!]

Fighting over Paris Hilton sure is smart.

 

[jaguarr]

I thought the hype's own personal legal consultant claimed the judge could take away her good behavior time?

If the judge wanted to make it a condition of her sentencing, he could. Doesn't mean that he did. All that was stated was that he could if he wanted to. In this instance, he simply did away with the partial commuting of her sentence. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

jag

 

[Spider-Bite]

Also from article:



Also, while Baca may know the law, he does not make or set it. He only enforces it (i.e. does what he's told).

People make motions all the time which are rejected because of what the law says. the guy hasn't been held in contempt of court, has he?

 

[Spider-Bite]

If the judge wanted to make it a condition of her sentencing, he could. Doesn't mean that he did. All that was stated was that he could if he wanted to. In this instance, he simply did away with the partial commuting of her sentence. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

jag

the law says he can't take away her good behavior time. I gave a link showing that he can't. It's up to you to provide a link saying he can.

 

[Themanofbat]

This is the funniest pic seen on the Hype in a loooooooooooooooong time... t: t: t:

 

[xwolverine2]

^
BWAHAHAHA!!!!!!

totally got me beat

 

[Iceman]

So much great art in this thread

 

[Boom]

Is it wrong for me to get a sick pleasure out of these pictures?

See those tears? Those are the tears of sweet justice prying her from her safe haven.

It's a beautiful thing.

 

[jaguarr]

the law says he can't take away her good behavior time. I gave a link showing that he can't. It's up to you to provide a link saying he can.

It's sort of a funny little law, actually. California state law requires that inmates get time off their sentences for each day they serve. However, if the inmate shows failure of good behavior, those good behavior days can be added back to the sentence by the judge. Failure to show up for a court date and making the judge send a patrol car to get you isn't good behavior. So, it's sort of a catch 22 because the judge has the discretion to decide whether an inmate's behavior is good enough to qualify them for the good behavior laws that cut days served off of an inmate's sentence. Do things that don't constitute good behavior (like not showing up for court or showing outward contempt for the judge and the ruling) and you don't necessarily get your automatic days off.

It'll be interesting to see what they do with the medical release reasoning, though. That's the big reason they were citing for releasing her early, though it sounds like they didn't follow proper procedure in getting a doctor's diagnosis and approval of the situation. They also should have checked with the judge before releasing her on that one. Obviously he didn't buy the excuse that was used, because she's back in jail.

jag

 

[Spider-Bite]

I guess the sheriff is under a federal court oder to reduce overcrowding, and most non violent inmates only serve 10% of their sentence. What's 10% of 23 days?


Go to MSNBC video and watch the video on Paris called Above the Law.

For some reason the copy link wont work.

Tell me again how she isn't getting harsher treatment?

 

[xwolverine2]

 

[odiin]

the law says he can't take away her good behavior time. I gave a link showing that he can't. It's up to you to provide a link saying he can.

As far as I know, he didn't. Her sentence is, and always was 45 days. With good behaviour taken into account it's reduced to 23 but her actual SENTENCE that she was given by the judge is still 45 days. If he said that she had to serve out the remainder of her 23 day sentence than he would have actually changed his initial sentence and with good behaviour she could be out in 12 days.

 

[Spider-Bite]

As far as I know, he didn't. Her sentence is, and always was 45 days. With good behaviour taken into account it's reduced to 23 but her actual SENTENCE that she was given by the judge is still 45 days. If he said that she had to serve out the remainder of her 23 day sentence than he would have actually changed his initial sentence and with good behaviour she could be out in 12 days.

Your post is true. I'm just saying that Jaguar claimed that from his knowledge working in the courts, the judge could have done it if he wanted to, and I merely provided a link showing that's not true.

He was using his history as a way of saying he knows more than I do, therefore I shouldn't argue with him. But I was right. I've given links showing what I stated was true, and others said that what I was saying was untrue, and that I needed to provide links, so I did. but nobody has provided links stating the opposite.