Paris if a free woman again...

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Some of that raises valid points and some makes no sense to me. Regarding the alleged party...I don't know if those reports are true or not but I'd imagine if I just got out of jail I might feel like celebrating at home where it's safe, Paris' parents were probably overjoyed, I know I would be if my child was just released given the circumstances (hell, given any circumstances) and if she was suffering from depression and on the edge of a psychotic break, it makes perfect sense to surround her with friends and try and erase some of the anxiety so I don't see the issue. Now the other part of your post regarding her alleged illness, are you saying that they should have kept her incarcerated until she was cured? Boy, I'd hate to go to your prison with a chronic illness! Seriously though, the reports are she was suffering from acute depression due to her incarceration and was on the edge of a psychotic break...if true, removing the stressor (in this case jail) is the treatment! Is the Sheriff responsible for anything here? Frankly I don't know enough about procedure in that county to know whether he followed the law or not...he claims he had jurisdiction and the judge disagrees, that's a matter for the appeals court. What we know is that he and prison authorities reviewed the information they had, including the diagnosis of a psychiatrist, and came to a decision. In my experience here in Pa, it would seem like they acted properly but I just don't know Cal law, if it is later determined that he was somehow wrong then he will and should be held accountable. Regarding the sheriff's "responsibility" to prove anything here to the judge, again that seems to be a debatable subject and one the court will again decide but again, what we do know is that the judge affectively "hid" behind his viewpoint that it was the Sheriff's responsibility to provide the information. what I'm saying is that if he had problems with the decision, why wouldn't he demand the info and review it BEFORE taking action? He obviously knew (that's an assumption on my part but hard to believe he hadn't heard) that there was a medical condition involved in the decision yet he refused to consider that...sending her back to prison.
Let me try this scenerio...taken from Law and Order TV show...more extreme I admit but the same principle involved...letter of the law vs intent.
Say a man is convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to death. Some time passes and he exhausts his appeals, finally only days before his scheduled execution, new evidence is found that proves beyond any doubt he is not guilty, the attorney goes to the judge but the judge refuses to hear this evidence because the appeal process has ended...by the letter of the law, the judge is right to so rule, but that means an innocent man will die! Would you be comfortable with that? That's what happened here, because...at least in the judge's mind...the Sheriff and other officials failed to produce "evidence" that he knows exists, he is refusing to consider same. According to reports, Paris was placed in the medical wing under suicide watch with 24/7 observation, security cameras, the whole works...suppose, just for argument, she does experience a psychotic break and harms herself or suffers permanent damage and once reviewed, the psychiatrist's diagnosis clearly warns of same...how will the judge explain his refusal to even review this information? Why wouldn't he?

i guess i just don't understand why she was unable to follow the rules after her original brush with the law. she didn't, so the original punishment was enforced. if she was having other problems, surely they could have, or should have, been addressed before her incarceration. she had to turn herself in by a certain date, no doubt there were further avenues to follow...
and if my daughter was about to go psychotic, she'd be under a physicians care, not hanging out at home with all of her various enablers!
if the sheriff had evidence of some type of episode, surely in this day and age, it would have been easily produced.
to be honest, i'm amazed that this has all gotten so much press. i can't believe a stint in county jail would produce so much drama! or this many pages of discussion!

everybody knows the cali penal system is a joke anyway.

[Rileyoriley]

I'd be willing to let her do her time at home if we never have to hear about her again. And she can take Brittney, Lindsey, Nicole, and Rosie with her.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by Rileyoriley

I'd be willing to let her do her time at home if we never have to hear about her again. And she can take Brittney, Lindsey, Nicole, and Rosie with her.

excellent idea!

to be honest, i think a lot of folks who are sentenced to jail should do it elsewhere, or community service, etc. save the space for those who are a danger--altho, a drunk driver IS a danger.

dui offenders should have to volunteer in the emergency room, mopping the floors after victims of dui's come in.

[Rileyoriley]

Or work in the morgue.

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

excellent idea!

to be honest, i think a lot of folks who are sentenced to jail should do it elsewhere, or community service, etc. save the space for those who are a danger--altho, a drunk driver IS a danger.

dui offenders should have to volunteer in the emergency room, mopping the floors after victims of dui's come in.

I agree with that...keep in mind though that her original offense was DUI, her PV was due to two counts of driving with a suspended license...just a point of clarity, still a violation but not like a second DUI (which would have merited a much harsher sentence imo).

[timmgirvan]

The thing that bothers me is that the judge imposed the full sentence on Paris,when it was the Sherriff who changed her housing arrangement. And it was the Judges' assistant who told the media of the "telephonic hearing". That just put another burr under the Judges' saddle!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

I agree with that...keep in mind though that her original offense was DUI, her PV was due to two counts of driving with a suspended license...just a point of clarity, still a violation but not like a second DUI (which would have merited a much harsher sentence imo).

well, certainly she merited harsher penalties, since having her license suspended certainly didn't seem a punishment, since she just ignored it!

[somerfrost]

Originally Posted by Danzig

well, certainly she merited harsher penalties, since having her license suspended certainly didn't seem a punishment, since she just ignored it!

Yes but....again and again!
According to attorneys and judges who practice criminal law in California, the usual penalty for this type of PV is extension of parole/probation or 3-6 days community service (wearing those ugly orange suits and cleaning up roadside or on the beaches etc.) 45 days was a very heavy hit, and I still haven't heard an explanation as to why aside from sending a message...and we've been down that road over and over!

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by somerfrost

Yes but....again and again!
According to attorneys and judges who practice criminal law in California, the usual penalty for this type of PV is extension of parole/probation or 3-6 days community service (wearing those ugly orange suits and cleaning up roadside or on the beaches etc.) 45 days was a very heavy hit, and I still haven't heard an explanation as to why aside from sending a message...and we've been down that road over and over!

is that the norm for one driving on suspended charge, or two? since it was two counts, (and wasn't it not too long ago that she went for the original charge? i'm not 'up' on paris) maybe he thought she was a real danger of being a repeat offender, or not taking it seriously, etc....
also, what was she pulled over for that led them to find she was on a suspended license?