Paris Hilton has been released after just three days in jail and has been re-assigned to 40 days of house arrest, The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department said on Thursday.
A medical condition prompted Hilton's reassignment, the department said.
Hilton checked into the facility Sunday night to begin serving a more than three-week sentence for violating probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case.
The 26-year-old hotel heiress surrendered to authorities with little fanfare after a surprise appearance earlier that day at the MTV Movie Awards, where she worked the red carpet in a strapless designer gown.
She was held in a special unit where she was spending 23 hours a day in a solitary cell, her lawyer said.
After she checked in, sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore said Hilton's demeanor was helpful.
"She was focused; she was cooperative," he said.
Hilton's lawyer, Richard Hutton, said Monday after his client's first night in jail that she was doing well under the circumstances.
The star of "The Simple Life" reality TV show pleaded no contest to a reckless-driving charge in January and was sentenced to 36 months' probation. When she was later pulled over by the California Highway Patrol, Hilton was told that she was driving on a suspended license and signed a document acknowledging she was not to drive. She was then pulled over by sheriff's deputies on Feb. 27 and charged with violating probation.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
Sound off: Were authorities right to reassign Hilton?
ID:183630
 Jun 7 2007, 4:56 am
|
|
|
Jun 7 2007, 5:27 am
|
|
Jmurph
 |
Hrm, I guess wealth is a medical condition....
|
Gads, whatever happened to 45 days? She had her license suspended and drove anyway! Why shouldn't she get a worse punishment than 3 days for that? What idiots keep shaving days off her sentence? How will she ever freaking learn?
Habitual drunk drivers pull this crap all the time. They'll drive with a suspended license or without one entirely. Personally I think if you're caught driving with a suspended license that was taken away for DWI or DUI, you should have to spend a minimum of 6 months in a treatment facility. Anywhere will do, really, as long as the offender is locked up, because that's apparently the only way to keep some of these people off the roads. Maybe we can get Paris deported instead. And her mom too. Let's see them pull this crap in Iran. (Also, it makes a great diplomatic threat. "Stop making nukes or we'll send you the Hiltons!") Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
(Also, it makes a great diplomatic threat. "Stop making nukes or we'll send you the Hiltons!") I think that might be against the Geneva Convention. [edit]I stand corrected, it seems she lost her license in because of a DUI, but she wasn't caught again because of it, but rather, she was speeding. Normally, a big fine would be enough, but in this case, they couldn't fine her enough to make a difference. Putting the brat in jail is the only thing that would affect her. | |
Danial.Beta wrote:
Lummox JR wrote: Heh. Of course, after sponsoring terrorism for 27 years, I think the Geneva Conventions may not even protect them anymore. Point is, she was driving drunk multiple times, she needs to be stripped of her right to drive entirely, for at least a few years. She was stripped of the right to drive, via a suspended license. That she continued driving anyway is a slap in the face to law-abiding citizens that the law was meant to protect! I say again, anyone who drives drunk, has their license suspended or revoked for it, and is caught driving again, must be locked up for a decent amount of time. I don't care where, in prison or in a treatment center (either is justified), but the point is that the public has to be protected from these morons. [edit] I saw your edit after I wrote this post, but the point stands. It was taken away for DUI, and she was caught driving again. Different crime this time, but based on the DUI suspension she still needs jail time. I mean damn, my step dad was caught in a small accident a few miles away from our house after getting his license taken away and he wasn't allowed to drive for over a year on top of his remaining few months. I think anyone who gets a DUI needs to instantly get thrown in jail, and there needs to be a rather harsh reprimand for it. She, especially, has no excuse at all, she is rich. She can afford a cab, and probably could have a personal driver if she wanted. We don't treat DWI/DUI harshly enough in most states. Not yet, anyway. The biggest problems are the serial offenders, who will just keep driving drunk no matter what you do, unless you lock them up. Some judges even make excuses for these people and refuse to treat the crime with the seriousness it deserves--as you can see from the way judge after judge has pitched in to give Paris the kid-glove treatment. Lummox JR | |
I mean damn, my step dad was caught in a small accident a few miles away from our house after getting his license taken away and he wasn't allowed to drive for over a year on top of his remaining few months. I think anyone who gets a DUI needs to instantly get thrown in jail, and there needs to be a rather harsh reprimand for it. She, especially, has no excuse at all, she is rich. She can afford a cab, and probably could have a personal driver if she wanted. The punishment isnt just with the law, it goes way past that. Your whole life suffers because of it. You wont be able to get a great job becuase they wont hire you with a DUI on your record. | |
Prison is a very harsh place to send someone 'just to get them off the roads'. What you're saying is that we should send the one off offenders there because the serial offenders don't learn. If someone drinks too much they're probably going to be a full on alcoholic by the time they leave prison.
It seems to be a huge flaw in your justice system. You'll throw people in jail for carrying some pot and they'll come out a crack addict. The impact of taking a license away from someone can be huge. I think it was Danial.Beta who was explaining that to get anywhere from his house is a ten minute drive. I would expect that is the reason his father was driving under a suspended license. I'm not saying you shouldn't be tough on these guys but when you jump straight to minimum jail times you end up doing a lot more damage. It's hard to be sympathetic towards these people, but you've got to remember that there are also huge social implications. It's not just the driver who loses their license, the drivers family loses a car. I'm not saying you should let them use their families and jobs as shields, just that your judges should have a variety of punishments they can use depending on the circumstances. By being flexible they can be tougher on the people who need it without destroying the ones who only need a slap on the wrist. | |
Solution: cars that electrocute people if they don't have a license.
No wait- cars that automatically cause a pile-up if they don't have a license! | |
Crispy wrote:
You won't think that's such a great idea when the robot revolution comes and the cars attack. That's what Old Glory insurance is for. | |
DarkView wrote:
Prison is a very harsh place to send someone 'just to get them off the roads'. What you're saying is that we should send the one off offenders there because the serial offenders don't learn. If someone drinks too much they're probably going to be a full on alcoholic by the time they leave prison. Well I'm not talking about jailing someone for drinking too much. I'm talking about jailing someone who insists on being a severe hazard to the people around them and won't stop any other way. And prison is only one option; like I said, treatment centers work too, as long as they can't leave. The impact of taking a license away from someone can be huge. I think it was Danial.Beta who was explaining that to get anywhere from his house is a ten minute drive. I would expect that is the reason his father was driving under a suspended license. But by driving under a suspended license, the impact isn't there at all. If he's still driving, then the measure taken by the courts to ensure the safety of others has failed utterly. The entire point of suspending a license is that it's illegal to drive without one, and if that law isn't enforced, then suspending or revoking a license doesn't mean diddly crap. I'm not saying you shouldn't be tough on these guys but when you jump straight to minimum jail times you end up doing a lot more damage. In a lot of drug cases I'd agree with you, and for that matter many other crimes that somehow end up getting rated as worse than rape and murder. Those kinds of minimum-sentence laws are ridiculous. But I'm talking about someone who poses an ongoing threat to other people and can't be stopped any other way. It's hard to be sympathetic towards these people, but you've got to remember that there are also huge social implications. It's not just the driver who loses their license, the drivers family loses a car. If the driver is reckless enough to get into that situation in the first place, so what? The fact that a driver in the family will be out of commission is a factor they're supposed to consider before taking rash action. I'm not saying it's great if the breadwinner for and only driver in a family loses the privilege of driving, but then there's always the bus (except of course in rural areas). I'm not saying you should let them use their families and jobs as shields, just that your judges should have a variety of punishments they can use depending on the circumstances. By being flexible they can be tougher on the people who need it without destroying the ones who only need a slap on the wrist. Because drunk driving is so much deadlier than any other thing you can do on the road--with the possible exception of talking on a cell phone, which is apparently equally bad--it needs to be treated with much more than a slap on the wrist. But if the punishments available fail to work--and they're basically there to protect others, not to punish per se--then stronger measures are needed. Lummox JR | |
First off, and image that makes me giggle with glee:
 "A judge has ordered Paris Hilton returned to jail to serve out her 45-day sentence for a probation violation. She was taken from court screaming "It's not right!" The frenzy over Hilton's jail status began Thursday when sheriff's officials released her because of an undisclosed medical condition and sent her home under house arrest." -- http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/08/paris.hilton.ap/ index.html | |
Once the hearing began, [Superior Court Judge Michael T.] Sauer was blunt in his criticism of the sheriff for disobeying his orders, which specifically banned home confinement with electronic monitoring.
"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." [...] Seconds later, the judge announced his decision: "The defendant is remanded to county jail to serve the remainder of her 45-day sentence. This order is forthwith." Hilton screamed. Eight deputies immediately ordered all spectators out of the courtroom. Hilton's mother, Kathy, threw her arms around her husband, Rick, and sobbed uncontrollably. Drama queen much? She's spending a mere 45 days away from her luxury palace and she's acting like it's the end of the world. What a prissy little spoilt brat. | |
Crispy wrote:
She's spending a mere 45 days away from her luxury palace and she's acting like it's the end of the world. What a prissy little spoilt brat. I dunno, if I was famous and getting sent to prison I would probably be crapping my pants pretty hard too. Also she probably thinks they're only doing this because she's rich and famous and they're trying to make an example out of her (oh the woes of being super wealthy. I wouldn't wish it upon anyone... but myself =P). As dumb as that sounds there is an element of truth to it. The judge is clearly making a big scene out of this because the media jumped all over the 'Paris gets let out because she's filthy rich' angle. That and being a spoilt rich kid she didn't actually think this could happen. I can't help but feel sorry for her. She's probably had her lawyers telling her for the entire case that she'll spend three days in jail, say prison life is hurting her mentally, then spend the rest of the time at home. Not only has she realised she's actually going to have to do this thing but she's realised that apart from a few of her friends the entire planet is laughing at her pain. Sure she deserved it and probably needed the reality check, but it's still really, really harsh. | |
DarkView wrote:
Crispy wrote: Why? Okay, it's embarrassing, but it's not like it'll hurt her future. For most people getting a criminal record is a big deal because it hurts their employment prospects. She doesn't need to work. The judge is clearly making a big scene out of this because the media jumped all over the 'Paris gets let out because she's filthy rich' angle. I don't think that's necessarily true. He may well have done it anyway. I don't know enough about the legal system to be able to say what usually happens - do you? That and being a spoilt rich kid she didn't actually think this could happen. I can't help but feel sorry for her. She's probably had her lawyers telling her for the entire case that she'll spend three days in jail, say prison life is hurting her mentally, then spend the rest of the time at home. She'll get over it. If the experience makes her a better person then it will have been worth it. I just can't bring myself to feel sorry for her. Most people never even set foot in a place as luxurious as her house, and she's throwing a tantrum over being away from it for less than two months. Grow up already. | |
I don't feel the sentence is too harsh at all, especially since she had a cell to herself in jail, because she was caught driving with a suspended license twice after it was taken away for DUI.
I do feel a slight twinge of sympathy for her in that she was given the idea that maybe things wouldn't be so bad after all, and the rug was just yanked out from under her. On the other hand, she still goes away for a month and a half, so it's a victory for civilization. Besides, she should never have been given the more lenient sentence in the first place, which the judge explicitly forbade in his ruling. What I can't figure out is what the frell the idiot sheriff was thinking, changing her sentence like that against the judge's ruling. Moreover, I can't even figure out where he would even get the authority to do that. It's not like sheriffs have pardoning power like presidents or governors, so I don't get how he was able to do what he did. Anyway if you want to look for a real miscarriage of justice against a celebrity, look no further than what's happened to Duane "Dog" Chapman. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
I do feel a slight twinge of sympathy for her in that she was given the idea that maybe things wouldn't be so bad after all, and the rug was just yanked out from under her. Really? I thought that was the best part. | |