Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
One at a time:
1. Agreed. And the proper sentence should have been something to scare her silly, like a work program or at most a weekend in jail. If you or I did this, we'd get at most a weekend in jail. Being a ridiculous shit and a cur on society, which she is, is not illegal. The sentence was too heavy. And why not community service? That seems to me to be the most appropriate sentnece for her. Make he work in a soup kitchen and clean up roadkill along the freeway.
|
I don't agree with that. If you or I were on probation, violated it three times, strolled into court late to face a judge who isn't fucking playing and challenged his authority and basically laughed in his face, we (or at the very least I) would get serious time in jail.
Quote:
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
2. Again, being a spoiled jackass isn't a crime. Loathsome isn't the benchmark for sentencing in this type of matter. The better course was revocation of her license for 5 years, which is what they do (I think) in PA and Jersey when you get your third DUI. In LA, that's an incredibly cruel punichment, but deserved. Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.
|
I'm not saying she should be punished because she is a jackass or is loathsome. I'm saying those are the qualities that lead her to think she is accountable to no one, ignores the law, thumbs her nose at the court and generally does as she pleases. The proper punishment for those things may be debatable, but don't tell me she got the wrong sentence for completely disrespecting the law and the court. Fuck her. She got exactly what she deserved.
If they took away her license for 5 years, I would be okay with that too. But what happens when she drives anyway after that? Would we be having this exact same conversation? [I see you said you think she should get 48 hours for each offense after that, but I don't think it's enough. If jail was actually jail for her like it is for everyone else, I might be okay with that. But just sitting in a cell by herself for 48 hours doesn't mean shit.]
Quote:
|
Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield 4. I don't think that works. People who commit these types of crimes have no idea of what jail is like, so it's not even a factor in their decision making. And the practical reality is, putting her in general population would only result in her physical harm, which is not the aim and wouldn;t survive a constitutional challenge.
|
You are missing the point. They have no idea what jail is like because they are completely protected from having to go. Put Lindsay Lohan in general pop for driving while coked up for the 800th time and step back. Everyone will know pretty fucking fast how bad jail is if they are in actual danger of going and spending time in general pop. Everyone of those assholes would have a friend who did it and the cautionary stories would travel like wildfire. And if they still don't care, well then, tough shit.
As for your other point: Wouldn't survive constitutional challenge? Are you joking? Do you know how much physical harm occurs in jail right now? Is there something in the Consitution that says celebrities need not deal with the horrors of prison because people might want to prey on them like they currently do the weak? Again, celebrities wouldn't be committing any fucking crimes if they knew they were eligible to attend a federal pound-me-in-the-ass prison and would be walking the yard like everyone else. And if they did anyway, well, tough shit.
Now, I'm with you if you think no prisons should tolerate rape and violence. But only if it applies to everyone. Since we currently tolerate the fact that people are targets because they are weak, I don't see why we should treat people who are targets because they're famous any differently.
TM
