Scooter Libby, and Paris Hilton

[pecunium]

Lots of ink has been spread, and uncounted electrons recycled, on both of them.

I see parallels, mostly in the various hypocrisies being bandied about by those who are defending them.

Poor Libby just couldn't catch a break, to hear those who wrote letters to the judge asking him to be lenient.

Libby, you see, was the victim. It doesn't matter that the crimes for which he was convicted were serious, and related to a grievous harm to our national (and perhaps the world's) interest.

No, see the Att'y General, appointed a special prosecutor (who was a US Att'y, appointed by GW Bush) to look into an complaint by the CIA (being run by Bush's man Tenet); who alleged (to read all these letters, falsely) that a covert agent had been outed.

This rogue, Republican, prosecutor actually asked Libby questions, which Libby (under oath) answered with lies.

The prosecutor, ignoring Libby's noble purpose in preventing the person who sabotaged the US efforts to contain nuclear proliferation in the Horn of Africa (known to be a hot-spot of folks who really don't like us, and would like to be able to more easily trade in radioctive materials) from being brought before the bar, had the effrontery to present a case to a grand jury, which (imagine) actually indicted him for perjury, and obstructing justice.

If that weren't bad enough some witless bunch of jurors failed to see through all the flim-flam, and convicted him.

How does this relate to Paris Hilton?

Well the story making the rounds is she is being treated more harshly than she deserves. Someone (a rogue judge... spouting nonsense about "respect for the law") insisted that she serve a whole 45 days.

Only the facts aren't that she was pulled over for a DUI, and given 45 days.

No. She was given 45 days for violating probation.

For what was she on probation?

Driving recklessly, while drunk, back in January. She got three years for it. Along with it came some restrictions; she could only drive while in possession of a valid license, had to enroll in a program, and (as is standard with probation) had to obey all laws and court orders.

She didn't. She got a ticket for driving without a valid license, (after she, and her lawyer(s) were sent a notice that her license was suspended) and had to sign that she knew she wasn't allowed to do it (so she got a second chance, more than many get). Her passenger got to drive the car home (again, this was more slack than some get, the police could have impounded the car)

She never enrolled in a program.

Then she decided to take a midnight drive; still without having had her driving privilege restored. This wasn't a quick trip to the grocery, no, it was ding 75 in a 30 zone (miles per hour, not kilometers), at night, with no lights.

She was late to court.

She got 45 days.

She got off easy, the judge had every right to revoke her parole, and send her to prison (not jail) to serve the entire bit her probation was in lieu of.

Yep, them poor people, getting so much more grief than they deserve. Libby has the "it wasn't the sex, it was the 'perjury'" crowd explaining that his, very real perjury; and obstruction of justice, aren't all that bad, and Hilton has the same people who say the system give too many slap on the wrist sentences accusing the judge of being to harsh for giving some 45 days in jail; and insisting she actually serve the sentence, instead of making her go to prison for a couple of years.

Those rich, and famous, people just can't get a break.

Comments

[supergee.livejournal.com]

They both belong in jail, but it's more important to put Libby there.

[davidkevin.livejournal.com]

I think that intent has to be taken into account. Mr. Libby is part of a cabal which took over the government through election fraud and have subsequently proceeded to systematically corrupt every part of it they could.

Ms Hilton is self-centered and scatter-brained, but I don't think there was any deliberate evil involved in her case.

It's also interesting to note that (in my observation, at least) those here on LiveJournal who have commented wishing the worst to her (including in one example the explicit wish for her to be physically beaten) are also among the worst of the Internet bullies in LJ, targeting and abusing those who make themselves vulnerable by openly acknowledging their disabilities -- they're nothing if not consistent.

Sheriff Baca's announcement that she has a severe case of ADD puts a lot of Hilton's poor behavior in focus: looked at from that viewpoint, her symptoms seem amazingly obvious in retrospect: I'm a little surprised that nobody close to her spoke up about it before now. Since ADD/ADHD has a physical cause, the obnoxoids I mentioned above are wishing for the very real equivalent of "kicking a cripple".

The court should just order a boot put on her car so she can't drive it (or impound it for the duration of her probation), and send her home. No good is being done by her jailing, unlike with Libby, whose imprisonment will send a very real message to some aiders and abetters of tyranny who are perfectly healthy except for an overactive will to power.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I wasn't trying to draw an explicit comparision to the levels of crime, it was more a comment on what having money/notoriety does to the ability to spin one's case.

I think the both intended to break the law.

I think that there is a parallel to the cases, in that both can be used as examples.

And I think both of them intended to break the law. Paris had ample warning (the terms of her probation, the notice of her suspension, the warning she was given) to toe the line. Booting her car isn't going to stop her from doing what she did (one of the violations she made was in a new car... and one need not have a license to own a car).

If she had done a single thing which showed any intent of adhering to the terms of her probation, then I'd be more forgiving, but she didn't.

I agree with supergee that, in the grand scheme of things, Libby going to jail is far more important (esp. as the arguments have boiled down to, "Libby is a Republican, and was doing what he did because it was good politics, so no real crime took place) and letting him slide is a slap in the face to the idea of the rule of law; as well as his apologists being blatant hypocrites, on the very subject of the rule of law.

But the core issues (not the severity of offense) are related.

TK

[davidkevin.livejournal.com]

It may well be that she never formed the intent to "deliberately violate" the order to cease driving -- if her ADHD is as strong as the latest reports indicate, her having done so may have fallen into the obsessional blind spot from which so many inappropriate behaviors on the part of the ADHD-afflicted spring. I speak from both observation and experience, as having a severely afflicted son has been a revelation to me with regard to much of my own behavior which has gotten me into trouble in years past: sometimes the afflicted literally don't understand why what they're doing has such negative consequence. I don't intend to belabor the point beyond this comment, but I think she needs therapy for coping-with-authority and following-instructions-even-if-you-don't-understand-them strategies, not criminal punishment.

Jerry Pournelle said she's getting justice without mercy, compassion, or temperance. I think he's right.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

That still brings us to the question waterlilly asks, "what makes her special?" (even if we accept, arguendo that her, imputed, ADHD, is 1: capable of rendering her incapable of intending to break the law/unaware that what she does is wrong, and 2: that inability doesn't make her someone who needs to be instutionalised for her own; if not societys, protection).

There are lots of people who have ADHD, are they exempt from the consequences of their actions?

Or is it just that the rich are entitled to more mercy, compassion and temperance? Because I think being allowed three, flagrant violations, of her probation was compassionate, even merciful.

Giving her 45 days, instead of the remaining 2 1/2 years strikes me as temperate.

I know people who got one strike, and then were committed to jail for the full term of their sentence.

TK

Intent and the Law

[waterlilly.livejournal.com]

Her "intent" and/or ability to form it may not have mattered very much, depending on the intent element required for the crime. Her original crimes, the traffic violations, are probably "strict liability" offenses, i.e., the statute doesn't list a mens rea component for them (such as "intentionally" or "knowingly" or "recklessly"). Things like traffic offenses, we don't necessarily care, in a policy/statutory way, why you did it, what matters is that you did it. Intent won't enter into it. If you did it, you're guilty.

"Driving with a suspended license" is probably either strict liability or may have a very low mens rea such as "recklessly," which standard she'd probably meet even with ADD unless she was literally unconscious when she did it.

So really, there may not even be any point or use in arguing what her intent was, under the statute, depending what it said.

With all due respect, I'm just not buying your argument that ADD/ADHD entitles her to a "not guilty by reason of insanity" kind of defense. And even if she were so mentally ill as to be actually entitled to such an excuse, then where she belongs is an institution, which is where we take people after they're found not guilty by reason of insanity. I hardly think you intend to argue that she needs to be institutionalized, but that is the slippery slope your argument takes us down, ultimately.

Re: Intent and the Law

[davidkevin.livejournal.com]

> With all due respect, I'm just not buying your argument
> that ADD/ADHD entitles her to a "not guilty by reason
> of insanity" kind of defense. And even if she were so
> mentally ill as to be actually entitled to such an
> excuse, then where she belongs is an institution, which
> is where we take people after they're found not guilty
> by reason of insanity. I hardly think you intend to
> argue that she needs to be institutionalized, but that
> is the slippery slope your argument takes us down,
> ultimately.


I mean neither. What I mean is that incarceration is not justice for her, or for the taxpayers of Los Angeles County who are paying for her incarceration. To a certain extent they are paying for what appears (from my point of view) to be judicial whim.

Sometimes jailing is the way to handle things. Kelsey Grammer went through a terrible period, at least once managing to miss a a court date by a full day, and wound up cleaning up roadside trash in an orange jumpsuit for some weeks in the daytime while sleeping at taxpayer expense at night. He realized he'd badly screwed up, took responsibility for it (I saw a t.v. interview conducted sotto voce while he was in custody in his issued jumpsuit, in a courtroom while it was in recess, and he was quite frank about realizing he needed to live up to his responsibilities), and while he's had some relapses, has lived a mostly stable and successful life ever since.

Ms Hilton is not legally insane, but it appears she does have a physiologically-based disability which can in some cases lead to major errors in judgment, although almost never to violence or deliberate destructiveness. My point and opinion are that there are better ways to deal with reinforcing appropriate public behavior on her part than what is currently being done, with jail reserved for those from whom the County needs safeguarding or for those for whom it would better serve as a deterrent to future bad behavior.

Despite her age, she's never been an adult, never fulfilled any adult responsibilities. The fact that she cried out in her anguish and fear for her mom to save her says it all. Adult coercions will not produce the desired results.

pecunium is right that in theory she could have been sent to prison for three years if Judge Sauer had so ruled -- but that would have been, I think, a guaranteed reversal on appeal. Judge Sauer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_T._Sauer)'s only notable act as a prosecutor was to try to imprison someone for wearing a jacket which said "Fuck the Draft" on its back, and this has been his only notable act in 35 years as a judge -- in fact, he was demoted from trial judge to arraignment judge in 2003.

I think it may be possible that never getting further in his career than the equivalent of Judge Harry Stone in Night Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_Court) after 35 years on the bench is gnawing at him, and he piled it on a girl-woman who gets a lot of negative press anyway -- he refused to even glance at the medical evidence after having her brought back before him -- rather than truly serve justice.

Your Mileage May Vary and all that.

Re: Intent and the Law

[waterlilly.livejournal.com]

And see, to me the important thing to keep in mind here is that there are plenty of people with similar mental difficulties (and worse) who are paying the consequences for their illegal actions behind bars. Where is their extra special consideration for their disabilities? Why is it that they know why they're there, and they realize that unless and until they learn to follow the law, they're going to spend a lot more time there?

Who, exactly, do you think populates our jails? (Hint: Most of the prisons and jails in this country are full of people who have mental problems that contribute to their difficulties following the law.)

Unless you are arguing that everyone with these problems (ADHD, mental illness, whatever keeps one from following the law) needs to be treated rather differently by the system, unless you are in fact arguing that the system itself needs an overhaul, it still sounds like you're arguing for special treatment for a spoiled, rich brat precisely because she is a spoiled rich brat who can't be expected to know any better and who by the way is struggling with a mental problem that a huge number of law-abiding people live just fine with. (Another hint: I'm a textbook case of female adult ADHD. No criminal record, either. Funny that.)

I think it's reasonable to expect people who are legally adults and who enjoy the privileges of adulthood (driving, drinking, having their own homes, signing their own contracts) to also deal with the adult consequences of their actions. I absolutely do not believe that she is incompetent to the point that she is not responsible for her actions. And if she is, then once again, maybe she doesn't need to be out in public unsupervised.

Re: Intent and the Law

[davidkevin.livejournal.com]

Of course I'm arguing for reform! I have no interest in giving someone preferential treatment. Justice is evenhanded; conversely, justice not tempered with compassion and mercy is not true justice, but revenge.

All the way back in "Dagger of the Mind", written in 1966, Star Trek described the modern penal colonies as "clean, decent hospitals for sick minds", a simply-phrased ideal we've yet to approach, much less meet.

And for pity's sake, I never implied that ADHD would automatically lead to crime -- I'd have to turn in my own son and myself in that case. Sheesh.

I think she does need a life coach/supervisor, one with just enough derived authority to make the therapy stick and push her toward adulthood as her parents seem to have dropped the ball in this regard.

For all her purported vapidity, I suspect there still could be a productive, contributing person inside, trapped because she never got proper therapy and/or clinical medication. Like so many others who've gotten themselves trapped in a nasty system, she deserves another chance to do right. Once she's released from the County Jail, she'll still have probation to fulfill, and one can hope that someone, somewhere, would have enough knowledge and talent to make her use that time to become a not-just-chronological, but actual, adult.

I think the same way for not just her but all those stuck in the System whose lives could be fixed, if only somebody gave a damn.

Why Paris Hilton does belong in jail

[waterlilly.livejournal.com]

Whatever her problems, and I do acknowledge that ADD is a problem and a disability, she is still an adult and mentally competent enough to understand what she did wrong to get herself on probation, and what she did to get sent to jail after breaking the conditions of her probation. If she truly doesn't understand these things, then where she belongs is under lock and key in a hospital facility for people who are seriously mentally handicapped and can't be allowed out alone lest they hurt themselves or others.

If she cannot or will not conform her behavior to the law, after more than ample warning, she gets to deal with the consequences.

I promise you, the jails are full of people with minor and serious mental problems who are still expected to deal with the consequences of their actions. In fact, the juvenile detention facilities have a fair number of people who are too young to vote or drink and barely old enough to drive who know damned well what "probation" and "suspended license" mean. And a lot of them are laboring under much heavier familial and mental burdens than "severe" ADD. Why should they be expected to deal with the consequences of their actions if we give Ms. Hilton a free pass because her actions are "without malice" and she has a mental difficulty that is treatable with modern medicine that she can easily afford?

Why should the rules be different for her? Being rich and famous and pretty should not absolve someone from being responsible for being a competent adult.

I don't want to see her injured, but I do want to see her serve out her complete sentence. You break the rules, you pay the consequences.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Sheriff Baca's announcement that she has a severe case of ADD puts a lot of Hilton's poor behavior in focus: looked at from that viewpoint, her symptoms seem amazingly obvious in retrospect

Then she's finally in a location where she can be diagnosed and directed to proper treatment and away from the herd of enablers, if so. Personally I think such a diagnosis is too convenient and should be eyed skeptically until supported by a third party with no connection to this sordid mess.

It still doesn't excuse her poor behaviour. It may point out different avenues towards correcting this behaviour, but she doesn't deserve a "walk" because she's unable or unwilling to address her condition.

The court should just order a boot put on her car so she can't drive it (or impound it for the duration of her probation), and send her home.

She's a Hilton. She can buy a Beemer on her charge card and still have plenty of credit left over.

-- Steve will point out that the point of this is to prevent future bad acts. Otherwise this is just a shadow show.

[davidkevin.livejournal.com]

>> Sheriff Baca's announcement that she has a severe case of
>> ADD puts a lot of Hilton's poor behavior in focus: looked at
>> from that viewpoint, her symptoms seem amazingly obvious in
>> retrospect


> Then she's finally in a location where she can be diagnosed
> and directed to proper treatment and away from the herd of
> enablers, if so. Personally I think such a diagnosis is too
> convenient and should be eyed skeptically until supported by
> a third party with no connection to this sordid mess.


Sheriff Baca's announcement was predicated by observation of her in the jail medical unit -- whether by a county-employed or county-paid consulting psychiatrist I don't know, but one of those two, after her private psychiatrist turned over her medical records. It was Sheriff Baca's doctor who made the determination that she was so ill her condition was being exacerbated by incarceration.

Diagnosis is one thing, treatment is another. Having lived in Los Angeles, I can tell you that the county jail system there simply doesn't have the resources to provide treatment of the kind she needs. Period. You think the public is squawking now, just wait until the cost estimate of treating her at taxpayer expense during her incarceration is made known.

[anton-p-nym.livejournal.com]

Sheriff Baca's announcement was predicated by observation of her in the jail medical unit -- whether by a county-employed or county-paid consulting psychiatrist I don't know, but one of those two, after her private psychiatrist turned over her medical records.

The version I'd heard, and was going from, was that the diagnosis was provided by a psychiatrist hired by the Hilton family. Hence my distrust of it as a likely "easy out". If there's more to it than that, then perhaps my "neutral third party" criterion has already been met.

Note also that I said "directed to", not "provided", proper treatment. Referral to counseling is common throughout penal/correction systems, or so I thought from my admittedly limited contact with them.

-- Steve's wondering if Paris would qualify for involuntary committment to psychiatric care if this is indeed a result of ADHD, as driving over twice the speed limit without lights is certainly a danger to herself and others...

[cluefairy-j.livejournal.com]

Turns out she may not have been treated special.

http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/news/la-me-paris14jun14,0,404958.story?coll=la-home-center

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

There are two things here.

1: The sherrif violated a court order in releasing her.

2: She was/is eligible for 2 1/2 years in prison for the violations of her parole.

So she's being sentenced to 45 days of 912, which is five percent of her maximum exposure.

So she's been sanctioned with half of the usual for jail time. For prison, parole is offered/granted at 1/3rd of the sentence, which would be, for her, about 120 days, so she's getting off easy there too.

Is it out of line? No. Perhaps it ought to be, but most Drunk drivers (even those convicted of reckless driving) don't do more than 90 days, so this is consonant, and actually revoking her probation entire would be out of line.

TK

[pindar.livejournal.com]

There's been speculation that a deal wwas cut with Baca that she would only serve 3 days before being tagged and sent home, hence why she was so up-beat at the MTV awards and why she started screaming "It's not right" in the courtroom.

Also, the judge became aware that the Hiltons were contributors to Baca's campaign funds and donated the maximum allowed by law.