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

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.