We'll Always Have Paris

It's looking more and more likely that Paris Hilton will always be with us. Why has she become such an explosive subject? I make no illusions to having been above the fray, having already talked about her myself. But not only does she seem to be everywhere, in most of those places she inspires very strong opinions. Someone wrote about her at Howling Curmudgeons on Monday and was excoriated for it (so much so that an apology of sorts for even bringing up the subject in the first place appeared on Wednesday). Even Christopher Hitchens wrote about her (unhappily and against his better judgment, he assures us).

Certainly there was schadenfreude involved in her going to jail. There was a sense that she was getting what she deserved, although I'm not entirely sure what she might've done to deserve it. She's been in the spotlight more than any of us would like, but just turn the channel. After she was sent home with an ankle-bracelet, though, the firestorm was far stronger than anyone (particularly the sheriff of LA County) expected. I'd started to hear rumblings that she'd been treated just like everyone else in a similar position, but serving just a few days on a 45-day sentence sounded like she was getting off awfully easy. I'd considered writing something to that extent, but my sources--mostly people talking on the radio and personal conversations--were hard to pin down and virtually impossible to link to. But the question has hung in the air, and today (via Kevin Drum) the LA Times lays it out for us. Yes, she has received harsher treatment than most in her situation did, and it's pretty much all as a result of her celebrity.

The Times analyzed 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.

. . .
Because of the high media interest, Hilton was one of only a few inmates whose premature release received publicity — and the judge who originally sentenced her noticed. She is believed to be the first inmate in years who actually was sent back to jail to serve more of her term.

. . .
If Hilton does serve the 23 days, she will have done about the same amount of time as 4,000 inmates who since 2002 had been charged with assaults, as well as more than 1,800 charged with burglary, more than 2,600 charged with domestic violence and nearly 11,000 charged with drug violations.

It seems this has been handled poorly all the way around. If the sheriff was releasing her because of overcrowding, he should have said so. The medical excuse sounds bogus, and the fact that supporting evidence hasn't been shared with the judge of the case simply underscores that assumption.

It seems to me that the main problem is a disconnect about sentencing between law enforcement and the public. Few in the public understood that 45 days really means only a couple of days, but it's not a secret of any kind among those in the legal system. I suspect this isn't an intentional subterfuge, but it sure comes across like one. If somebody's only going to serve a couple of days, why don't we say so? Why do we pretend that it's really a month and a half when everyone involved knows it's blatantly not true? If we own up to the true length of a sentence, if anyone is unhappy with that, they can take steps to address it. If prison overcrowding is the problem, we can agree to build more jails.

On the other hand, perhaps it's true that this is all a huge media circus because Paris Hilton is involved, and no matter what the actual facts of the case were, it would always be a media circus.