I realize I should be ashamed of making a Paris Hilton post, but I can’t help myself here.
TalkLeft has had a bit of a “Free Paris” theme recently. For example, on Wednesday the blog cited an LA Times article that pointed out that Paris’ sentence is harsher than 80% of sentences for similar crimes in Los Angeles County.
TalkLeft opined:
Paris Hilton should not receive special treatment because of her celebrity or financial status, but neither should she be treated more harshly. As Patrick Fitzgerald repeatedly said during the sentencing hearing of Scooter Libby, when it comes to sentencing, “one’s station in life does not matter.”
I’m not convinced that Paris’ sentence is unusually harsh due solely to her celebrity status.
One of the reasons that judges are supposed to be given latitude in sentencing convicted criminals is that circumstances may warrant varying degrees of leniency or harshness to reflect the uniqueness of the event.
It seems plausible that a judge could be more tolerant of driving on a suspended license when you’re doing so because that’s the only way to get to a job to put food on your childrens’ table, than if you were driving despite having the ability to retain someone to drive for you.
Or, perhaps a convicted individual displayed real remorse in the process leading to sentencing, rather than showing projecting an arrogant air of having done no wrong.
It’s all too easy for me to believe that Paris Hilton could be an individual who needs to be aware of how the masses actually live, and/or that she needs to learn that the universe does not revolve around her, but rather she’s a part of society that has laws (silly though they may sometimes seem) that must be worked within if society is to function best.
Perhaps the sentence was harsh given the crime. However, that doesn’t make it any less appropriate of a sentence.