Posted on 06/08/2007 12:23:57 PM PDT by pabianice
A "screaming" Paris Hilton has been dragged off to serve her full 45 days in jail. Reportedly screamed and called to her mother as she was taken away. More.
She wasn't charged with hitting or killing someone so this example is moot.
Every lawyer or DA I have seen on Fox says her sentence is atypical and excessive....even those gleeful over her troubles admit it is extraordinary sentencing bsed on what they usually see.
Which is what I based my opinion on. If this was standard procedure I wouldn't say squat about her being singled out though I would think 45 days is a bit much for anyone.
She has only had one revocation hearing....and she was 10 minutes late....which did not help her..lol
what break?...no one gets time for first offense DUI ...especailly with a .08 blow
this was her first revocation hearing before Sauer...not her third
Her mother is an idiot. She didn't help her daughter's case much by hackeling the judge and the prosecutor at the first sentencing by screaming out comments like "I want your autograph. This is pathetic. I can't believe all the money we spent on this." in the courtroom during proceedings. She just as much of a freak as her daughter is.
Defending due process means defending Paris too
Michael Gaynor Michael Gaynor
June 8, 2007
I don’t love Paris (Hilton), even in the spring, but I do love the Constitution and loathe discrimination even against the wealthy. That means defending Paris against judicial abuse(despite my disapproval of her life style), just as it meant defending members of the 2005-2006 Duke University Men’s Lacrosse Team against abuse by a false accuser, the media, Duke University and the criminal justice system in Durham County, North Carolina (despite my disapproval of stripper parties).
The Los Angeles County Sheriff chose to send Paris home from jail with an ankle bracelet to continue her incarceration there, apparently for a medical reason.
The prosecutor and the judge were upset. The prosecutor immediately moved to have Paris returned to jail, and the next day the judge held a hearing and ordered her returned there.
Was that judge’s order arbitrary?
I suspect so.
In Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471 (1972), the United States Supreme Court held that although parole revocation does not call for the full panoply of rights due a defendant in a criminal proceeding, a parolee’s liberty involves significant values within the protection of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and termination of that liberty requires an informal hearing to give assurance that the finding of a parole violation is based on verified facts to support the revocation.
The Supreme Court: “[T]he liberty of a parolee, although indeterminate, includes many of the core values of unqualified liberty and its termination inflicts a ‘grievous loss’ on the parolee and often on others. It is hardly useful any longer to try to deal with this problem in terms of whether the parolee’s liberty is a ‘right’ or a ‘privilege.’ By whatever name, the liberty is valuable and must be seen as within the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment. Its termination calls for some orderly process, however informal.”
Does “house arrest” (which beats jail, especially when the house is the Hilton mansion include “many of the core values of unqualified liberty”?
Does its termination “inflict[] a ‘grievous loss’ on the person under house arrest and often on others”? (Reports of Paris Hilton’s reaction to being ordered back to jail suggest the answer is yes.)
If Paris Hilton’s interest in “house arrest” is NOT “valuable,” then why did it attract so much attention?
Was due process respected in the termination of Paris Hilton’s house arrest and return to jail?
That depends upon what process was due.
I have doubt.
Here’s what the Supreme Court said due process required in order to terminate parole:
“Turning to the question what process is due, we find that the State’s interests are several. The State has found the parolee guilty of a crime against the people. That finding justifies imposing extensive restrictions on the individual’s liberty. Release of the parolee before the end of his prison sentence is made with the recognition that with many prisoners there is a risk that they will not be able to live in society without committing additional antisocial acts. Given the previous conviction and the proper imposition of conditions, the State has an overwhelming interest in being able to return the individual to imprisonment without the burden of a new adversary criminal trial if in fact he has failed to abide by the conditions of his parole.
“Yet, the State has no interest in revoking parole without some informal procedural guarantees. Although the parolee is often formally described as being ‘in custody,’ the argument cannot even be made here that summary treatment is necessary as it may be with respect to controlling a large group of potentially disruptive prisoners in actual custody. Nor are we persuaded by the argument that revocation is so totally a discretionary matter that some form of hearing would be administratively intolerable. A simple factual hearing will not interfere with the exercise of discretion. Serious studies have suggested that fair treatment on parole revocation will not result in fewer grants of parole.”
The Supreme Court explained that a parole and the parole’s family are not the only ones interested in the parole receiving due process: “The parolee is not the only one who has a stake in his conditional liberty. Society has a stake in whatever may be the chance of restoring him to normal and useful life within the law. Society thus has an interest in not having parole revoked because of erroneous information or because of an erroneous evaluation of the need to revoke parole, given the breach of parole conditions.... And society has a further interest in treating the parolee with basic fairness: fair treatment in parole revocations will enhance the chance of rehabilitation by avoiding reactions to arbitrariness.”
If house arrest is sufficiently comparable to parole, then Paris should have been accorded due process.
The Supreme Court ruled: “[D]ue process requires that...the determination that reasonable ground exists for revocation of parole should be made by someone not directly involved in the case.... we need make no assumptions one way or the other to conclude that there should be an uninvolved person to make this preliminary evaluation of the basis for believing the conditions of parole have been violated.”
Should the judge who had sentenced Paris have been the one to decide whether the Sheriff’s decision to send Paris home under house arrest?
Maybe not. (He reportedly was angry with the Sheriff, not the appropriate frame of mind for a judge dealing with a person’s liberty interest.)
Did the judge conduct a suitable hearing?
Maybe not.
The Supreme Court ruled, with respect to a parole revocation hearing:
“There must also be an opportunity for a hearing, if it is desired by the parolee, prior to the final decision on revocation by the parole authority. This hearing must be the basis for more than determining probable cause; it must lead to a final evaluation of any contested relevant facts and consideration of whether the facts as determined warrant revocation. The parolee must have an opportunity to be heard and to show, if he can, that he did not violate the conditions, or, if he did, that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation....
“We cannot write a code of procedure; that is the responsibility of each State. Most States have done so by legislation, others by judicial decision usually on due process grounds. Our task is limited to deciding the minimum requirements of due process. They include (a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a ‘neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole. We emphasize there is no thought to equate this second stage of parole revocation to a criminal prosecution in any sense. It is a narrow inquiry; the process should be flexible enough to consider evidence including letters, affidavits, and other material that would not be admissible in an adversary criminal trial.”
It does not appear that the minimum requirements for parole revocation were met in Paris Hilton’s house arrest revocation hearing and it is indisputable that Paris should not be victimized by a jurisdictional dispute between the sentencing judge and the Sheriff.
It is not apparent that there was a need to proceed at warp speed, as was done. Paris surely did not constitute a danger to the public while under house arrest wearing an ankle bracelet and she should be treated no worse as well as no better because she is a celebrity and controversial.
and now I just read this judge has a press conference for himself over Hilton?
geez....i am as tired of preening judges as I am cultural fixations on bratty immature rich kids
Good luck with the Freeper torch and pitchfork peasant mob!
It's nice to see you around. Hope your ticker is all well.....
I never stated Paris was released because of "overcrowding" but that her release after a few days for what she was charged for is not uncommon even for the little folk. The articles posted was just to show that hard core criminals are released after few days and Hollyweird types like Hilton only after a few hours. Like I said before if Paris did not act like a clown during her first sentence hearing, she didn't have the peanut gallery named "mom" with her, and showed some remorse to the court, the judge would not have "thrown the book", for lack of term, at her. But since she wanted to act like an idiot, this is what she gets.
Thank You....you remembered.
I know I won’t live forever darn it but the docs fixed what was a congenital defect (acute intraseptal bridging of the coronary LAD) and I feel pretty damn good.
Check out my homepage for the results..
I’m pretty hardcore right winger...even militant about abortion admittedly but this Hilton thing and the cackling rankles me. ...maybe 50 has softened me up.
It’s great to be back and I am grateful to those here who arranged it. Nice fresh feeling forum for me.
God bless ya and thanks!
LOL!! Very true and I can't stand Hilton so its weird somewhat 'defending' her but what you just said, Al, is 100% true. :D
The break was the DUI charge was brought down to a lesser charge. And the fact that it was technically only the first hearing isn’t the point. There were 3 violations of her parole to that point. 1. She never did the court-mandated class. 2. She was caught driving on a suspended license and graciously given a passes -— only asked to acknowledge in writing that she understood she is not to be driving and 3. Drove again anyway. So the fact that they didn’t hammer her the 1st and 2nd time, means the judge is supposed to pretend those things didn’t happen when it comes to strike 3? Face it, the gal was given and lot of breaks and she blew it!
What you said is all true but has nothing to do with whether 45 days for her crime is just or common for this judge in this jurisdiction.
And it is neither in my opinion and in the opinion of any other legal expert I have seen on TV from Los Angeles and I’m sure you watch Fox too.
Btw...I don’t think we should have young women especially with famlies in our military anywhere near a war zone. No culture will prevail sending it’s women overseas to fight for it’s men. Women have never been used as such by any military culture in recorded history. It is a grave mistake, my appreciation of their sacrifice notwithstanding.
Hey, was that preachers wife from Tenn? LOL!
Exactly another Judge Tito or whatever the hell OJs judge's name syndrome. Its a nonviolent probation violation, no one gets 45 days for that.
yep...that is the case....completely unsustantiated crap about the dead man from meanassed wife mankiller.
even her daughters defended dead daddy against her and her lawyers onslaught
no truth at all that he made her do jack or was ever physically abusive
and evidence galore she had blown money and he had argued with her about it and then he’s shot in the back sleeping and she runs off to Florida in the mini van
and all they got was he was mean to her and made her wear tacky crap to bed for whoopee?
can you imagine a man saying that sort of silly junk if he killed his wife?
I have seen women beat killings their husbands all my life...in Jackson Mississppi, the Pendergast and Bush wives killing their husbands come to mind...both rich
nothing explains all this glee except meowness and some class resentment
And you think that means it wasn't a violation?!
as for her medical situation....if folks here think prison staff can mete out decent medical care then they have misplaced faith in such abilities of the state.
She's got herpes, not cancer.
again...I ask to anyone....does Sauer always come get and re-incarcerate anyone who Baca lets go who he sentenced?
Unbelievable. She breaks the law THREE times and you think she's being treated badly.
Do folks here think 45 days is fair for anyone driving on a suspended license?
She violated probation by driving twice on a suspended license. Flouting the law is SERIOUS.
What about if one forgets to pay a ticket and DMV suspends it and one drives anyhow? 45 days for that?
How about you get a grip?
DUI Sept 2006
Driving on a suspended Jan. 15 2007
Driving on a suspended AGAIN Feb 27 2007
What about this can't you get? She wasn't jailed for littering OR unpaid tickets.
I fault her for being bratty but that's not against the law.
She wasn't jailed for being bratty. She was jailed for ignoring the law.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.