2006-2007 Echo Issue Outline ... to return to the page you "clicked" from, simply close this window



Related issue outlines:
No related issue outlines
Dictionary: Double-click on any word in the text to bring up a dictionary definition of that word in a new window (IE only).
Analysing the language of the news media: Click here to read a useful document on media language analysis
Age, Herald-Sun and Australian items: Click this icon ...

... to search the Echo newspaper index and enter the following word(s), with just a space in between them.
paris
hilton

Sydney Morning Herald index: Click here to use the State Library of NSW's online index to the Sydney Morning Herald
Search for listed newspaper items online - see end of this page

2007/17: Celebrities and the law: was Paris Hilton treated too leniently by the Californian justice system?<BR>

2007/17: Celebrities and the law: was Paris Hilton treated too leniently by the Californian justice system?


What they said ...
'It backfired against her because she's a celebrity. She got a harsher sentence because she was a celebrity'
Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School Los Angeles

'Do the rich and famous get a better break from the justice system than the poor? ... Is this just California justice?'
Frank Courser, from a letter published in the San Diego Union Tribune

Background
On June 3, 2007, hotel heiress, Hilton checked herself into the Century Regional Detention Facility, an all female jail in Lynwood, California. She was then transferred to a special section 'reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrities and other high-profile inmates'. With credit for good behaviour, it was anticipated that Hilton would serve 23 days of her 45-day sentence for violating probation on a drunk-driving conviction by driving on a suspended license.
On the morning of June 7, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County, Lee Baca, reassigned Hilton to 40 days of home confinement with an electronic monitoring device. The reason given was an unspecified medical condition. There was an immediate public outcry against the perceived leniency of Hilton's treatment.
The same day Hilton was released from jail, Judge Michael Sauer ordered Hilton to reappear in his court the following morning. At this hearing the judge sent Hilton back to jail to serve out her original 45-day sentence.
Paris Hilton was released from jail on June 26, 2007. In total she had served 22 days in detention, counting her day-long home confinement.
This series of events attracted enormous media attention in the United States and overseas. There were accusations that Paris Hilton had received special treatment because of her wealth and celebrity. These were countered by suggestions that rather than being treated leniently, the heiress was actually dealt with more harshly because of the public attention her case attracted.

Internet information
The Wikipedia entry on Paris Hilton can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Hilton
The entry gives biographical details of Paris Hilton's life as well as a detailed account of the offence for which she was sentence to prison and the course of her subsequent incarceration.

The online opinion forum IdeaMarketers has published an article by Edrea Davis, an author and a communications consultant. The article titled, 'America's Addiction to Prison Should be the Focus in Paris Hilton's Case' examines the growth in extended prison sentences which lies behind the current overcrowding crisis in the United States prison system.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.ideamarketers.com/library/article.cfm?articleid=195257

On June 11, 2006, The Washington Post published an article by John Pomfret titled, 'California's Crisis in Prison Systems a Threat to Public'. The article examines the problems caused by longer sentences and less emphasis on rehabilitation.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/10/AR2006061000719.html

On June 7, 2007, the Baltimore news site WBALTV published a report titled, 'Why is Paris getting special treatment' The report argues that Paris Hilton's release to home detention represented preferential treatment.
The full text of this article can be found at http://www.wbaltv.com/entertainment/13461053/detail.html

On June 8, 2007, The New York Times published an article by Sharon Waxman titled, 'Celebrity Justice Cuts Both Ways for Paris Hilton' The article looks at the extent to which Paris Hilton may actually have been treated more harshly because of her celebrity status.
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/09/us/09hilton.html?ex=1339128000&en=dc203d00e128edf3&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

On June 8, 2007, The Chicago Tribune published an article by Rex Huppke titled, 'Hard time? 72 hours in, Paris gets out - for now'
The article suggests that Paris Hilton's release to home detention was inappropriate. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.chicagotribune.com/services/newspaper/premium/printedition/Friday/chi-hilton_personals_frijun08,1,4008989.story?ctrack=1&cset=true

On June 9, 2007, The Los Angeles Times published an article by Greg Krikorian titled, 'Inmates resent Hilton's special treatment'
The article quotes a number of prisoners criticising Paris Hilton's proposed home release on medical grounds. Some, however, indicate they believe her original sentence was too harsh. The full text of this article can be found at http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-me-inmates9jun09,1,5625009.story?coll=la-news-a_section&ctrack=1&cset=true

On June 12, 2007, The Sacramento Bee published an article by Andy Furillo titled, 'Prison crowding plays a role in Hilton saga'
The article looks at what lies behind the Californian practice of early prison release. The full text of the article can be found at http://www.sacbee.com/111/story/217613.html

On June 14, 2007, The Los Angeles Times published the results of an extensive survey of Los Angeles penal statistics which suggested that Paris Hilton did in fact serve a far longer sentence than has become the norm for the offence she committed. The article, written by Jack Leonard and Doug Smith, was titled, 'Hilton will do more time than most, analysis finds'
The full text of the article can be found at http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-paris14jun14,0,404958.story


Arguments suggesting that Paris Hilton was treated too leniently by the Californian justice system
1. Paris Hilton committed a significant offence
It has been noted Paris Hilton committed deliberate and repeated offences which had the potential to seriously harm or kill other road users.
Hilton was arrested in September 2006 for suspicion of DUI. She was found to be driving with a blood alcohol content of .08. As a result her licence was suspended from November 2006 until March 29, 2007.
On January 15, 2007, she was caught driving during the period of suspension.
On January 22, 2007 she pleaded no contest to a charge of alcohol-related reckless driving for the September incident, with three years probation. The sentencing judge ordered that she attend a 12-hour alcohol education program within 21 days and not drive without a valid license. She signed her notice of these requirements, and was clearly instructed about the terms of her probation.

On February 22, 2007, she was again caught driving with her license suspended. Her copy of the court order that she signed was in her glove box. She had not attended the required alcohol class within the required time.
Los Angeles prosecutors recommended that Hilton serve 45 days in jail for violating the conditions of her probation. They cited three terms of her probation that she'd violated. Firstly, she failed to enrol in the alcohol education course within 21 days of her sentencing. Secondly, she had several traffic violations stemming from the February 27 incident; and thirdly, prosecutors argued that Hilton failed to 'obey all laws and orders of the court'.
The highest penalty that could be imposed on Paris Hilton for this offence was 45 days imprisonment and this was the term to which she was originally sentenced. There are those who have argued that this repeated and apparently deliberate flouting of the law deserved a significant penalty.

2. Paris Hilton was originally to be released to home detention after only three days in prison on what appeared to be bogus grounds
After Paris Hilton's early home release was granted there was a rush of protest from those claiming the heiress was receiving preferential treatment.
Frank Mateljan, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles city attorney's office, stated at the time, 'We're getting a lot of calls, not just from Los Angeles, but from New Jersey to Florida to Michigan, from people who are very, very upset with the decision [to release her early]. People are all asking the same question: why does this double standard of justice exist?'
Reverend Al Sharpton, a New York civil rights activist, said Hilton's home confinement 'gives all of the appearances of economic and racial favouritism that is constantly cited by poor people and people of colour.'
Laura Ingraham, a radio talk show host who also appeared on TODAY, stated, 'I think if Paris Hilton was a 20-year-old black kid from South Central [Los Angeles], I don't think they would have slapped a monitoring bracelet on him and sent him home. The public outcry here is another example of America thinking that celebrities get special treatment.'
It has been disputed that the medical grounds cited by the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office as the basis for Paris Hilton's release to home detention were a smoke screen. It has been claimed that very few inmates are released early for medical reasons and then only on grounds far more serious than those that appear to have been present with Paris Hilton.
Jodi Kent of the American Civil Liberties Union, who spent three years monitoring Los Angeles jails, has stated, 'The only time I'd ever seen somebody released for a medical reason was if they were being released as a "compassionate release" - in other words, they're about to die. [Paris Hilton's release] is extremely bizarre.'
Los Angeles criminal defence lawyer Dana Cole called Hilton's release to home detention 'outrageous' and added that Paris would have gone to the hospital if there had been a true medical emergency.
Cole further stated, 'Many of my clients had all sorts of medical problems and never got out of jail. One client [had] a grotesque staph infection that was eating away at his leg - this is common in jail. I tried desperately but could not get him out of jail.'

3. Paris Hilton was given special treatment while in prison
It was reported that Paris Hilton's parents were given almost immediate access to their daughter when visiting her in prison. This, it is claimed, was in sharp contrast to the lengthy waits relatives normally have before they can see inmates.
It was further claimed that the easy access Paris Hilton's family gained may have been at the expense of other visitors attempting to see incarcerated relatives. There were suggestions that the special provisions made for the Hiltons meant that other visitors had to wait even longer.
The Internet news site MSNBC reported the dissatisfaction of a number of prison visitors at how they were treated relative to the Hiltons.
Shatani Alverson, 23, was reported as claiming she was hustled out of the visiting room at the Twin Towers Correctional Facility moments after her husband walked in because of the Hiltons. She was told to come back after lunch.
Alvina Floyd, 20, was reported as claiming she waited more than four hours to visit her fianc‚ where it normally took two. Floyd blamed the Hiltons for the delay.
During her stay at the Century Regional Detention Facility, Lynwood, Hilton was mostly confined to a solitary cell in the special needs unit away from the other 2,200 inmates. The fact that other celebrities would be treated similarly indicates to critics of the Californian prison system that all wealthy and famous prisoners can expect preferential treatment.
Paris Hilton was later taken to the downtown Twin Towers jail, which houses men and the county jail's medical treatment centre, where she underwent medical and psychiatric exams to determine where she should be confined. Eventually she was returned to Lynwood.
Hilton's Twin Towers stay cost taxpayers $1,109.78 a day, more than 10 times the cost of housing inmates in the general population. There are those who have claimed that this medical treatment was excessive and unnecessary and would not have been received by most inmates.
In addition, some inmates have claimed that, on at least one occasion, deputies put other inmates on lockdown while Hilton walked through the jail.

4. Paris Hilton was released after having completed only half her sentence
There are many who have argued, especially on Internet forums, that Paris Hilton should have served more than 22 days of the 45 days to which she was originally sentenced.
On CollegeNet Forum, this view was expressed repeatedly. One of those with this opinion stated, 'Paris Hilton was supposed to serve a 45 day jail sentence due to violation of her parole ... they've reduced her sentence to 23 days....I think it's unfair because had she been an "average" U.S. citizen, she would've served the full sentence.'
Another student on the same site commented similarly, 'I don't think it's fair at all. They should have let her serve her full time so it can teach her a lesson...If they hadn't reduced the sentence, it would have set an example for the other celebrities who think they are above the law.'
Californian congressman Elton Gallegly stated in relation to Hilton's reduced sentence, 'Paris Hilton should serve her entire sentence, as should anyone who flouts our laws. She repeatedly violated her probation and was given a lenient 23 days after originally being sentenced to 46. If she wants to avoid jail in the future, she should grow up and become a responsible citizen - after paying her debt to society.'

5. Only a significant sentence would be likely to modify Paris Hilton's behaviour
It has been argued that Paris Hilton's repeated violations of road laws suggest that a significant sentence was needed in order to modify her behaviour. Thus there are those who have argued that being released after serving only half the sentence she was originally given may not be sufficient punishment to have the desired effect.
TalkLeft, an online magazine with liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news, had many of its forum contributors discuss the need for Paris Hilton to complete her full sentence. One such contributor noted, 'After she failed a field sobriety test, Hilton had her license suspended but continued to drive, violating the terms of her probation.
She was pulled over three times by officers from three different law enforcement agencies during her suspension.
It seems that the judge, in sentencing her to 45 days, was genuinely interested in trying to discourage her from engaging in this kind of behaviour, specifically the initial offence which was driving under the influence, for which she had her license suspended. Yet she chose to defy that court order and continued to drive, perhaps even under the influence of alcohol at times as well.'
The heiress's own statements appear to support the view that only the prospect of a significant jail term led her to pledge to alter her conduct. In a telephone interview given to Barbara Walters after Paris Hilton was returned to jail from home release to serve a potential 45 day sentence, Hilton said, 'I'm not the same person I was. I used to act dumb. It was an act. I am 26 years old, and that act is no longer cute. It is not who I am, nor do I want to be that person for the young girls who looked up to me. I know now that I can make a difference, that I have the power to do that. I have been thinking that I want to do different things when I am out of here.'


Arguments suggesting that Paris Hilton was not treated too leniently by the Californian justice system
1. Early release or house release is a common feature of the Los Angeles justice system
California, including Los Angeles, has a major problem with prison over-crowding. As part of measures to try to relieve the pressure on the state's prison facilities, California has an extensive program of early release, including home detention.
In an article written by Andy Furillo and published in the Sacramento Bee on June 12, 2007, it was stated, 'As of May 30, Los Angeles County was housing between 1,200 and 1,400 state prison inmates in its overcrowded facilities in which the 26-year-old Hilton is now residing. Tens of thousands of inmates, meanwhile, are getting early releases from the Los Angeles jails that are accommodating those state-sentenced inmates, whom the California prison system otherwise can't house.
Despite the public angst over Hilton's brief early release, corrections officials say the truth is that those with similar convictions rarely serve their full sentences in Los Angeles ...
In 2005, about 230,000 county jail inmates were released in California before the end of their terms because of overcrowding at the local levels, according to the sheriffs association. Thirty-two California counties are operating under court-imposed inmate population caps.'
On June 17, 2007, The Los Angeles Times published the results of its extensive analysis of Los Angeles pattern of early prisoner release and the impact of jail over-crowding. The newspaper stated the following findings, 'The Times analysed 2 million jail releases and found 1,500 cases since July 2002 that - like Hilton's - involved defendants who had been arrested for drunk driving and later sentenced to jail after a probation violation or driving without a license.
Had Hilton left jail for good after four days, her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60% of those inmates.
But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced that she would serve the full 23 days. That means that Hilton will end up serving more time than 80% of other people in similar situations ...
The data ...underscore the profound effect of the Sheriff's Department's early-release program, which sets inmates free before their sentences are up to ease overcrowding.'
Lee Baca, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County has indicated that the county jail system has had a severe shortage of beds for two decades and is under a federal judge's order not to let inmates sleep on the floors and keep the population at 20,000 inmates.
As a result, Baca has claimed he is forced to release many inmates, especially low-level offenders, after serving only ten percent of their sentences - including people who violate their probation by driving on a suspended license.

2. Paris Hilton's medical status appeared to make early release appropriate
The Los Angeles County Sheriff, Lee Baca, has indicated that immediately after Paris Hilton was incarcerated her medical condition appeared to make home detention the most appropriate option.
Sheriff Lee Baca said Hilton had developed a psychological condition that could have been life-threatening and that her mental state was deteriorating. Baca said he was faced with the 'unusual situation' of Hilton being unable to tell personnel what dosages and types of medication she was normally took and there was a disagreement between her own physicians on how she should be treated.
Sheriff Lee Baca said those factors led him to release Hilton early to serve out her sentence at home with electronic monitoring.
'Our doctors said we had no solutions for her medical problems. I think we all in this room know something about suicidal inmates, inmates killing inmates and inmates dying in our jails. As the sheriff of this county, I'm not going to let any inmate die.
In this case, we are dealing with someone who violated their probation by driving on a suspended driver's license. What's worth more? Serving time on a suspended driver's license or a person losing their life?'
Paris Hilton later indicated that she had initially suffered from panic attacks while in prison triggered by claustrophobia and that she had for much of her life been on medication for Attention Deficit Disorder.

3. Paris Hilton served a sentence appropriate to the offence she committed
It has been noted that even discounting the effect of California's early release program, Paris Hilton still served a sentence somewhat longer than would have been the norm before the early release program began.
The analysis conducted by The Los Angeles Times indicated 'Before the early-release program began in 2002, inmates with cases similar to Hilton's were sentenced to terms that amounted to an average of 23 days, the same as Hilton is expected to serve. They actually served 20 days.' The 22 days Paris Hilton served thus mean she served a sentence longer than was usual even before the early release program was introduced.
Paris Hilton served only 22 days of her original sentence of 46 days as recognition of her good behaviour while in prison. Early release as a result of good behaviour is standard practice in the United States prison system.
Paris Hilton's sentence was shortened after jail officials gave her credit for good behaviour. Officials considered several factors in calculating the credit, including that she appeared for her latest court date. The halving of initial sentences is a standard credit for good behaviour within the United States penal system.

4. The conditions Paris Hilton experienced in prison were appropriate to a prisoner in her circumstances
It has been claimed that the single cell facility that Paris Hilton was allocated during her period in jail was standard procedure for any high-profile prisoner who might attract potentially threatening or exploitative attention from another cell mate.
The Los Angeles prison authorities had originally intended to assign Hilton a cell that she would occupy with another inmate however they were ultimately unsure that they would be able to select an appropriate prisoner to share a cell with Hilton. Media outlets were offering a large sun of money to anyone who could supply a photograph of Paris Hilton in prison. It was decided that the best way to guard against such violations of the prisoner's privacy and the security of the prison was to have Hilton accommodated in a separate cell. The decision to have Hilton separated from the prison's general population was also taken for safety reasons.
The cell Hilton was confined to allowed her no special privileges. It was a four by two and a half metre cell with a toilet, sink, and a narrow, slot window. Hilton was allowed outside her cell for an hour each day to bathe, watch television, have outdoor recreation or use prison telephones. She was not allowed a cell phone.
While in prison Hilton had attempted to stick some family photographs on her cell wall. This is contrary to prison regulations and the photographs were taken down. During her time in prison Hilton complained to her parents of cold and lack of sleep.

5. Paris Hilton served a longer than normal sentence because of her celebrity status
It has been claimed that the 22 days Paris Hilton served of her 45 day sentence do not indicate that she was favourably treated. Rather, it has been argued, this is a significantly longer period spent in detention than is normal for such a sentence.
There are those who have argued that the media attention focused on the case and the Californian justice system's fear of appearing to favour the rich and privileged led to Paris Hilton being kept longer in jail than would be usual in such a case.
Paris Hilton's defence attorney, Howard Weitzman, described her sentencing as 'uncalled for, inappropriate and border[ing] on the ludicrous'. He also suggested that Hilton was singled out because of her fame.
Darren Kavinoky, a Los Angeles criminal defence lawyer, also stated that Hilton's original 45-day sentence was harsh. E. Christopher Murray, a New York civil liberties lawyer, agreed, claiming, 'Sentencing Paris to jail for an extended period of time was an example of a celebrity being treated more harshly than an average person.'
Lee Baca, the Sheriff of Los Angeles County has similarly stated, 'The data shows there wasn't any preferential treatment. In fact, the preferential treatment given to Paris Hilton is that she served more time than anyone else for this offence. Under the normal terms of the early release program, Ms. Hilton would not have served any time in our jail.'
Lee Baca has explained that it is usual to release many inmates, especially low-level offenders, after serving only ten percent of their sentences. This, he has stated, includes people who have violated their probation by driving on a suspended license. Baca has cited statistics which indicate that in the 12 months prior to June1, 2007, 382 women were sentenced to jail for driving on a suspended license. Of those, the vast majority were sentenced to 10 to 44 days. Just two percent were sentenced to 45 days. Of those sentenced to 45 days, like Hilton, all served less than six days in jail. Of those inmates sentenced to ten days, 77 percent served less than two days in jail. These figures suggest that the 23 days Paris Hilton served is a far more severe sentence than would normally be borne by someone who had committed her offence.
It has been claimed that her celebrity status meant the prosecutors had to be seen to be treating her case scrupulously and thus insisted she be returned to jail when she was released to home detention by the Sheriff's Office.
Laurie Levenson, a law professor at Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, has stated, 'She's a pawn in a turf fight right now ... It backfired against her because she's a celebrity. She got a harsher sentence because she was a celebrity. And then when her lawyer found a way out of jail, there was too much public attention for it to sit well with the court.'

Further implications
Accusations that Paris Hilton was favourably treated while imprisoned at the Century Regional Detention Facility, Lynwood, California, appear to be based on her proposed early release to home detention and then the fact that she was subsequently detained in a special unit for high-profile prisoners.
What made Paris Hilton's home release initially problematic were the grounds for it. It is highly unusual for a prisoner to be released early on medical grounds. However, without medical concerns being offered as justification, early release in California has become the norm. It is a necessity forced on the state by dire over-crowding within its prisons.
Sheriff Lee Baca may have been attempting to divert attention from the pragmatic grounds on which early detention is usually granted. If you have a prison system unable to accommodate the prisoners directed to it by your courts, having a high profile celebrity prisoner within one of your facilities would be a potential public relations disaster.
In the event, probably nothing Sheriff Baca could have done would have diverted a media catastrophe. Hilton is a celebrity whom a large number of the United States' public perceive as foolish and irritatingly indulged. Many believed that she would use her wealth to purchase favoured treatment within the prison system. The public was highly unlikely to accept that her early release was in fact the norm, whatever formal justification was offered for it.
The other basis on which Hilton's proposed early release to home detention was problematic was that the sentencing judge specifically prohibited it. Judge Sauer indicated when passing sentence that Hilton was not to be able to take advantage of the 'pay to stay' provisions in United States prisons, which allow wealthy prisoners to pay a daily rate of some $US80 which then allows them to be detained in more comfortable prison facilities.
Judge Sauer also indicated that Hilton was not to be released on work furlough, nor was she to be released to home detention. In addition, the 45 days to which Hilton was sentenced was an unusually long sentence for her offence. It would appear that far from Hilton's celebrity status favouring her, the sentencing judge wanted to make an example of her.

Newspaper items used in the compilation of this issue outline
The Age, June 6, page 17, news item, `Jailed Hilton "doing well" at start of her simpler life'.
The Australian, June 7, page 8, news item, `Distressed Paris calls in her psychiatrist'.
Herald-Sun, June 9, page 25, comment by Andrew Bolt, `Paris discovers God'.
Herald-Sun, June 9, page 21, news item by Peta Hellard, `Paris sees a brighter light'.
Herald-Sun, June 9, page 7, news item by Peta Hellard, `Judge drags Paris back into court'.
The Age, June 9, page 19, news item `Back to court after Hilton's release sparks indignation'.
Herald-Sun, June 10, page 25, comment by Robyn Riley, `Paris a smart gal'.
Herald-Sun, June 10, page 4-5, news item by Peta Hellard, `Court bows to outcry and sends Hilton back to jail / It's not right, Mum, wails caged Paris'.
The Age, June 10, page 15, comment by Waleed Aly, `We scoff at Paris, but we're her clients'.
The Age, June 10, page 14, editorial, `A chance for something good to come out of Paris'.
The Age, June 10, page 1, news item by Geoffrey Wright, `No way out for hysterical Hilton'.
Herald-Sun, June 11, page 7, news item (photo) by Peta Hellard, `Paris under watch'.
The Age, June 11, page 11, news item, `No food, no sleep for tearful Paris'.
Herald-Sun, June 12, page 17, news item, `Drugs help Paris accept cereal role'.
The Australian, June 13, page 8, news item, `Jail term a wake-up call for God: Paris'.
The Age, June 13, page 15, comment (with cartoon) by Christopher Hitchens, `Gloating as Paris falls'.
The Age, June 13, page 12, news item, `Jail has made me better: Hilton'.
The Age, June 16, Insight section, page 7, comment by Larissa Dubecki, `In breaking news, Paris Hilton has washed her hair'.
Herald-Sun, June 27, page 5, news item, `Liberation of Paris'.
The Age, June 27, page 10, news item, `Hilton out of jail: smiles for cameras'.
Herald-Sun, June 28, page 23, comment by Barry Koltnow, `If your name is Paris, who do you trust?'.
The Australian, June 29, page 9, news item by Robert Lusetich, `Paris on TV to say how much she's changed'.
Using google to find newspaper items still available on the Web
Use your mouse to copy a newspaper headline (just the headline, not the entire entry as it appears in the sources) and paste it into the google search box below. Click search to see if the item is still accessible.

Google