You can insult my point of view all you want....the fact remains that all you see is Paris Hilton...the debate has never been about whether she violated her parole, it is about her treatment by this judge! Try thinking about what I'm saying instead of attempting to belittle my pov.

So please point out why I am a hypocrite...since we are calling names, may I call you an ignorant bastard?

I'm being 100 percent serious when I say that you should look up that expression "can't see the forest for the trees". You are certainly entitled to your opinion...but remember, it doesn't make you an intellectual to refuse to focus on the elephant in the room.

The problem here is that we are talking about two completely different subjects...you are explaining why Paris deserves to "pay for her crime" and I'm talking about a judge who, in my opinion, is grossly overstepping his authority and using someone as a pawn in a "pissing contest" with the sheriff.

You call me a hypocrite then say you won't stoop to name-calling...LOL! I was kidding of course, I don't think you are an ignorant bastard but I already addressed Ninetoone's post...you gotta do better than that if you are gonna call me names like hypocrite (since I'm one person who has been accused over and over of being painfully consistant).

Yeah, the problem is that the two subjects come together to make the "story". It's my contention that the focus of the story (AKA the "big picture", or "forest", or "elephant") is Paris Hilton, and not the judge (the trees).

My feeling is that most reasonable and prudent people would agree with me, but I have no way of proving that on here. As I said, you have the right to focus on whatever you want, but it did strike me as strange that you were the same person that posted the Hancock reply. Oh well...I guess I'll just pray we never get on a jury together. My feeling is that you've seen 12 angry men a few too many times. :D :D

The judge just didn't want his sentence overturned essentially by a sheriff that most likely simply didn't want to deal with all the BS. I don't see that the judge did anything extraordinary. The judge thought, and I think rightly so, that it doesn't set a good example to just give up on the incarceration because it is difficult. Someone drawing a line and saying this isn't right. I admire the action he took.

LOL! I don't see the hypocracy in my points of view though...in Hancock, I was agruing that folks are indeed responsible for their actions...in Hilton, I'm saying exactly the same thing, Ms Hilton AND the judge are both responsible for their respective actions. I simply don't believe the story here is Hilton (although the media has certainly made it all about her and the public swallows the bait), I believe this is an example of a judge deciding to make an example out of someone and then getting into a "pissing contest" with the sheriff using Ms Hilton (and the public outcry against her) to go beyond his jurisdiction and impose his will on the sheriff...we'll see what the appeals court says.

My question is twofold...first, did he overstep his authority? and second, what is the motivation here? Legally we'll get an answer to the first part from the appeals court, we may never get an answer on the second.

I agree. Somer, what would you say if Paris did the time & came out in a few months & said that this is the best thing that's ever happenned to her? (and thanks the judge)

I'd say that has nothing to do with whether the judge's actions were right or wrong, fair or not. Paris may very well benefit from this experience (or she may suffer a psychotic break), that has nothing to do with my point. You keep going back to Paris and I've already said I agree with that issue (Paris broke the law and must be held accountable). My point continues to be that the issue here isn't Paris Hilton, it's the fairness (and legality) of the judge's actions. I was watching a panel discussion on Larry King tonight and there was some news...she is currently in the hospital section of the prison under 24 hour suicide watch...that means staff monitor her 24x7, a video camera is constantly on her and everytime she leaves her cell, a security supervisor must be with her. They didn't say but in the prison where I worked, she would not be allowed any personal possessions, clothed in a gown (we sometimes kept them nude) and allowed only a bare mattress...perhaps Cal law allows more I don't know. Obviously they are taking the psychiatrist's report seriously! Yet the judge refused to consider the medical aspects because he hadn't received an official report from the prison...he may be legally correct in so doing but can you honestly say that's fair? You would think he'd demand the report and review it BEFORE he sent her back to jail! There is a long trail here...a battle between the sheriff and the judge with the judge seeming intent on winning regardless of what happens to his pawn (Ms Hilton).

By the way, I would probably have voted "not guilty" in the OJ trial so you are probably justified in never wanting to serve on a jury with me! This is hard work...debating this topic with several folks and conducting a fantasy baseball draft at the same time...who says I'm too old to multi-task?

Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I applaud the judge for his actions & backbone. Unfortunately for him, other people involved, including the prison staff, are so terrified of getting in trouble that they are giving her special treatment. It's a joke & pathetic, IMO.

Thank you. I was about 99.9 percent sure anyway. Now I can finally go to sleep knowing 100% that it's not me!

Yeah, we can agree to disagree...I think the judge is...well, I disagree.
Another issue here is the role of probation/parole...it sounds so good in theory but dooms so many folks to "being in the system" for years if not for life. Remember that Paris' "crime" for which she was sent to jail was two counts of driving under a suspended license...hardly the stuff of crime novels but they violated her probation. I've seen folks leave prison with long "tails" (extensive periods of parole) only to return for long periods for "crimes" such as missing a meeting with their PO.

You didn't have a problem with that case?