Why I'll never support the death penalty...

I'm guessing judges are elected in California, hence the Judge in Paris' case had to put her back in. Otherwise, come election time, his opponent can attack the judge who "let Paris go."

I assume Sheriff is also an elected office, which is why I can't understand why he let her go in the first place.

The saddest thing about all of this is, it makes her even more famous than she was, and regardless of how she acts on the outside, deep down she has to be thrilled with it. She's getting major heat, that keeps her in the spotlight.

I hate that bitch so much... even more so now then I did before.

She has done nothing to contribute to society expect exclaim that everything is hot and take a shot in the face on a video camera.

Hey Raven-

thanks for checking-in, good to hear from you. I had no idea you felt so strongly about Paris...you make my distaste for her look like a mild irritant.....

Yeah, the level of hate for this one person is strong in me.

Hey Raven, what's shakin bacon!??!??!

How's things with you?

You can rest easy now Lew, Paris is free!

Paris Hilton Released From Jail

Hilton To Be Interviewed By Larry King Wednesday Night

POSTED: 3:46 am EDT June 26, 2007
UPDATED: 7:35 am EDT June 26, 2007

LYNWOOD, Calif. -- Paris Hilton left jail Tuesday after a bizarre, three-week stay in which the hotel heiress was briefly released to her Hollywood Hills home, then sent screaming and crying back to a county lockup.
The 26-year-old celebutante walked out of the all-women's jail in Lynwood to an enormous horde of cameras and reporters after midnight. She had checked into the jail, largely avoiding the spotlight, late June 3 after a surprise appearance at the MTV Movie Awards.
Hilton smiled as she left the jail, her blond hair pulled back in a braided ponytail. Her parents, Kathy and Rick, met her in a black SUV as cameras snapped pictures and Hilton, wearing a sage jacket with white trim over a white shirt and skinny jeans, did not respond to reporters' questions.

She didn't say anything, and it wasn't immediately clear where she was going.
"She fulfilled her debt. She was obviously in good spirits. She thanked people as she left," said sheriff's spokesman Steve Whitmore.
Hilton will complete her probation in March 2009 as long as she keeps her driver's license current and doesn't break any laws. She can reduce that time by 12 months if she does community service that could include a public-service announcement, the city attorney's office has said.
Hilton began her 45-day sentence for violating her probation in an alcohol-related reckless driving case. She was mostly confined to a solitary cell in the special needs unit away from the other 2,200 inmates.
She spent only three days there and was released with electronic monitoring by Sheriff Lee Baca for an unspecified medical condition that he later said was psychological. The following day Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, who sentenced the hotel heiress, called her back into court and ordered her returned to jail, saying he had not condoned her release.
Hilton left the courtroom in tears calling for her mother and shouting, "It's not right!"
She was then taken to the downtown Twin Towers jail, which houses men and the county jail's medical treatment center, where she underwent medical and psychiatric exams to determine where she should be confined.
Hilton's stay there cost taxpayers $1,109.78 a day, more than 10 times the cost of housing inmates in the general population.
The move by Baca caused a firestorm of criticism over whether the celebrity was getting special treatment. The Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors has launched an investigation into whether the multimillionaire received special treatment because of her wealth and fame.
At least one person has filed a claim against the county alleging she "had serious medical issues" but was treated much worse than Hilton.
A few days into her stint at the Twin Towers medical ward, the heiress revealed in a phone call to Barbara Walters a new outlook on life.
"I used to act dumb. It was an act. I am 26 years old, and that act is no longer cute," Hilton said during the call, according to an account posted June 11 by Walters on ABC's Web site.
"It is not who I am, nor do I want to be that person for the young girls who looked up to me," Hilton was quoted as saying.
Hilton's path to jail began Sept. 7, when she failed a sobriety test after police saw her weaving down a street in her Mercedes-Benz on what she said was a late-night run to a hamburger stand.
She pleaded no contest to reckless driving and was sentenced to 36 months' probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines.
In the months that followed, she was stopped twice by officers who discovered her driving with a suspended license. The second stop landed her in Sauer's courtroom, where he sentenced her to jail.


$1109.78 a day is what it cost to keep her where she was held! [img]eek.gif[/img]
How much would that ankle bracelet and home arrest have cost !?!?!?!??!?!? [img]graemlins/hmmm.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/sure.gif[/img]

But the ankle bracelet and in-home detention don't do a thing by way of "punishment." A person like Paris Hilton, of all people, is the last who needs to be allowed the gift of in-home. She needed to go to jail, quite honestly she needed to be in longer, but something is better than nothing I guess.

Plus, in-home is usually offered to those who have to keep a job and support a family (that's why most of my clients never got it; they never had anyone they were taking care of, because they never had jobs).

As I understand Lew's argument against the death penalty, it's basically that not until the first millionaire is executed will we have even the pretense that sentence is carried out in an objective manner.

Here's a related argument - why aren't white collar criminals executed? Didn't the crooks who destroyed Enron and WorldCom, or bureaucrats who dump poisons into the environment do a great deal damage to more lives than a street criminal? Perhaps if we took a hint from China, our implementation of the death penalty appear less biased.

Quote:

---

The heightened anger and fear felt by average Chinese over the safety of food ingredients, medicine and other consumer products were vividly on display here Tuesday after the execution of the former head of China's food and drug safety agency. Within hours of an announcement that Zheng Xiaoyu, 62, had been put to death for taking bribes from pharmaceutical companies, China's Internet lighted up.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...eadlines-world

---

<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I think we're safe, the likelihood of that happening is even less than the execution of an American millionaire...

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ July 21, 2007 11:57 PM: Message edited by: LanDroid ]</font>

Lan, you will never come across anyone more opposed to capital punishment than me, and my big three reasons are pretty much the standards- one, it is a deterrent, but only to the person who receives it; two, it is hardly carried out in a fair and objective manner; and three, innocent people have been executed (in my opinion, the unforgivable sin).

Many opponents of it also inject a 4th reason based on moral grounds, but I've never felt that way. If the three I listed could be addressed, i.e. it was a deterrent, it was carried out equally, and there was no risk of getting an innocent person, then quite honestly I'd have no such moral objection. I mean, let's pretend it was a deterrent- suppose we could demonstrate that the capital offense rate was 90% less in jurisdictions that had it vs. those that didn't. Well, then it would seem to me that the moral thing to do would be to prevent (deter) murders and save more lives.

Of course it's not a deterrent because people who commit murder do not do so with any thoughts whatsoever of getting caught (I mean, like life in prison is a sexy alternative). And it couldn't possibly be a deterrent unless it was carried out under some semblance of equal protection. And that's where my millionaire comment comes into play. The menacing street thug who kills the innocent co-ed.....we're all for frying him. But let a famous or wealthy person commit the same crime.....well, that's different.

Well I'm sorry, if the legislature can't seem to enumerate the crimes that qualify for capital punishment, regardless of who actually commits them, then it has no business legislating it in the first place.

And all of this is long before we get to the innocent persons who've been executed. And I'm sorry, that is the most unforgivable of all sins. I had a friend of mine (who disagrees with me) claim that it would be worth it if you could still show that, by executing the innocent person, you may still have saved 10 other innocent people. My response to that is simple- let those who feel that way volunteer for death row duty, and then tell me if it's worth it.

I think you just need to become the LA Prosecutor Lewman, then you can take care of business in your own way [img]wink.gif[/img]