Oh come on, as if this isn't the best thing that could have happened to Paris.

Just think about the DRAMA that has happened today with all of this.

Think about adding it into her book. These days in the slammer will only help her. The louder she wails on TV this afternoon and the more she cries the more people will get sucked in. So yea, it might suck for her -- but it stinks of adding to the jackpot at the end of the road.

Brian, don't fall into the trap of focusing on Paris here...of course she'll get a book deal and this will keep her in the public eye (certainly did all day today) BUT it doesn't make it right! The judge really nailed her with a 45 day sentence (extreme by most accounts), then the prison and sheriff Dept folks released her based on what appears to be reasonable criteria, only to have the judge react rather strongly (his anger was toward the decision by Corrections and Sheriff Dept)...at first there was supposed to be a telephonic "hearing" but that wasn't good enough for the judge who ordered the Sheriff to bring her in a marked cruiser in cuffs, after a lengthly "pissing contest" the sheriff caved in and brought her...no evidence was allowed concerning her alleged condition because no paperwork had been sent to the judge by the above staff so he sends her back to jail...don't confuse this with justice, this is nothing more than political powerplaying and pandering!

"book deal"

you mean she is literate?

there are inmates in l.a. county jails with aids, cancer, and serious heart conditions. none of them get released on medical need.

open heart surgery and kidney transplants get you out.

the judge, when he sentenced her, specifically ruled out serving the sentence at home. the sheriff department ignored that. they also ignored their own well established practice in dealing with requests for early medical release.

the appearence of special treatment seems unavoidable.

OK, some fair points:
1) I doubt there are many inmates in the system with such serious conditions serving 23-45 days for a PV. Also, psychiatric issues are handled differently than physical ones...while AIDS, heart issues, and cancer can certainly kill, they are easier to handle in an institutional setting. If a person is deemed to be at risk for SI or a psychotic break, they are often transported to a hospital and housed in a psych ward, larger facilities may have their own psych ward (I don't know if this one does) but it is labor-intensive and extremely costly...specially trained staff and 1:1 supervision. For those reasons, the prison administration is likely to seek alternatives. Also, should something happen (suicide attempt, psychotic break) the "blame game" would be off the chart. Again..while I certainly believe that Paris is responsible for her actions, on balance, if I were the Warden, I'd opt for a house arrest scenerio rather than risk severe injury to this young woman.
2) I don't know the specifics of Cal law but in many states, the correctional system and/or Sheriff takes control of inmates regarding issues such as early release, good time and medical issues. In any event, if the judge has issues with the Sheriff or other officials, why take it out on Ms Hilton? Marked squad car in handcuffs, completely ignoring whatever medical condition may exist. If he was all about fairness and justice, why not get with the Sheriff and Warden and find out why their decision was made and evaluate the facts BEFORE creating this public spectacle? If, as reported, a board certified psychiatrist diagnosed her as depressed and on the edge of a psychotic break, I'd think he'd want to know that BEFORE sending her back!

the judge acted specifically because the sheriffs department and defense attorneys provided no information supporting the alleged medical condition to him before her release as is required with other inmates.

he doesn't need to ask. the sheriff department is suppossed to provide the supports as to why they are violating a court order.

clinical depression is not a diagnosis that gets you out of l.a. county jail in most circumstances.

Actually, the Defense wasn't given the opportunity to discuss her condition according to reporters in the hearing so it falls to the Sheriff and my position/question remains! Clinical depression is different from SI...don't know if she verbalized SI but if so then that's a different ball game. Psychosis is also a different matter! It may fall on the Sheriff but I expect a judge to be concerned with fairness not some powerplay!

she's too narcissitic to kill herself.

that's strictly my opinion. i have no professional degree that makes it any more valid than your's but...c'mon for christ's sake.

i also think it's laughable to suggest a psychotic break is in the wings. she seemed okay a few days ago when she attended the mtv awards show.

i'd buy clinical depression. i think she's finally having to deal with some things she doesn't want to.

but again, according to defense attorneys quoted in the l.a. times today, that is never sufficent for an early release.

Well, I do have a MS in Psychology and 35 years experience in mental health but I don't pretend to know how she is doing, only that the symptomology is understandable given the circumstances...extreme emotional trauma often leads to acute depression, SI and psychotic presentations. There is nothing laughable about psychosis and why do you think that narcissitic personalities aren't subject to depression and SI? Still...the most obvious thing to me is that the authorities made a decision and sent her home, the judge could have obtained the facts behind said decision...he could have ordered that they present him with same, but instead...he ordered this young woman brought to him publically in handcuffs and sent her back to prison without ANY consideration of the reasons for the decision to release her! This isn't justice...this isn't fairness, this is a "pissing contest" with her stuck in the middle!

This is the best possible thing that could have happenned to her, and I'll bet she'll confirm this herself one day in the not so distant future. At that point, anyone who was defending her will be scratching their heads & still won't admit they were wrong.

You just don't get it do you? It isn't about Paris Hilton, it's about justice and fairness. Forget it's her, how would you feel if it was your daughter, mom, sister or friend...I'm thinking this will be overturned on appeal, the judge has probably overstepped his authority here. In any event, she'll probably be out on bail Monday. Will she probably get a book out of this? Little doubt. Might she use this to rehab her image? Possibly! None of which speaks to the point...I'm the one who always decries the failures of the legal system when poor folks go to jail and rich folks skate, I'd be the world's biggest hypocrite if I didn't denounce this obvious judicial ego trip using a wealthy well-known young lady as a political pawn!

This isn't about Paris? She wasn't the one that blew a .08 and was arrested for DUI? Since you're into hypotheticals, what if she would have taken somebody out during her little reckless burger run? And, to answer your question, if it were someone in my family, or a friend, I guess I'd be going to visit them in the joint!

Then that's you!

Oh yeah, your quote from the Josh Hancock thread...

I understand that the family is suffering by losing a son but this is another example of folks simply not taking responsibility for their own behavior...or, in this case, a father blaming everyone but his son for his son's behavior. According to reports, the restuarant manager tried to talk him into taking a cab, he was 2x the legal limit, speeding, talking on his cell, and he had grass in the car...the family should consider themselves lucky if the tow truck driver and the person with the disabled car don't sue them (son's estate). He could have killed several innocent people as well...sad, but this action is indefensible!

so...lets not blame everyone else but Paris...but hey, you're entitled to your opinion :D

You continue to focus on Ms Hilton, I've said from the beginning that she is responsible for her actions...this isn't about what she did, it's about her treatment by this judge!!! Knockout punch? I think folks are so filled with their view of things that they can't tolerate a different opinion!

I continue to talk about the issue of fairness and folks here simply seem unwilling or unable to get past the "Paris Hilton is an evil bitch who deserves what she gets" mentality! She is responsible for her behavior...and this judge is responsible for his!

did the judge commit the crime? Wake up...you are focusing on the wrong person, not everyone else in the world!

Here's an expression you might want to look up:

"cant see the forest for the trees"

I don't think this is anything to do with politics.

Politics between the sheriff and the judge

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?