I know there are some who find it hypocritical that those of us who do complain about the over exposure of Paris Hilton, are no better because a post like this just adds to the whole Paris Hilton drama. But like I told this person who made this claim about me, I am just taking advantage of the situation because normally in any given day, people are not be interested in reading about the disparities in the criminal system. Since the Paris Hilton affair sort exposed it, then why not take the opportunity to talk about.

Rachel – thanks and thank you for sharing that link. You are correct, that is an interesting twist. You made an excellent point over there. Thank you for pointing it out, I really do appreciate it. I made the correct. Feel free to point an other errors you see, honestly I do mind. I am always make corrections after the fact….lol

Mark-Alan Lynch – It is frustrating to see that she was given so many chances to get her act together and yet she still blows it. However, I do have to wonder, this behavior does not magically appear too, some of it is learned. Most likely her defiance towards the law was inherited from her parents. As for Baca, I agree, it is time for Baca to go considering this is not the first time nor will it be his last time either that he has shown celebrity favoritism.

Tom – You are correct. I think she learned that in her world – more like the world of the rich and famous – that some people are more equal than others. She just learned that not everybody has the same view.

George – exactly.

Sean – I can understand why you think this and I value your opinion, however, I am not reading that way. I feel that people are merely point out that there is large disparity between how people are being treated between that haves and have-nots. Given this disparity, people are just asking for some equality.

Here is another good post that points out another ironic twist related to the photo of her crying in the car.

I already knew about the ‘pay to stay’ jail stuff. That’s been going on for a while now. I guess I kind of thought everyone already knew about it? Heh. I’m usually pretty far behind the curve on these things.

One of the things I thought was interesting is the other information that’s surfacing about her release/treatment. The reason given on one of the radio stations I listen to (that is usually fairly reliable and has a fairly vested stake in not releasing false information on this particular issue) was that she was on haldol, and that (for whatever reason) they could not administer it to her in the amounts/frequency that she requires. Given that the caller claimed to be from inside the Lynnwood jail system (as a guard or something), and that the area code and other identifying information seemed to check out right… the information likely has at least a grain of truth. It certainly fits in well with the reports we’re now getting, that she was detoxing from cocaine, and thus behaving erratically enough to warrant removal. (Haldol is used, among other things, to treat withdrawal symptoms from ‘heavy’ drugs)

Given that our prison system isn’t known for the quality of its medical care, or its kind treatment for those suffering from substance-related illnesses, I can certainly see a lawyer making a convincing case that she would not be recieving adequate treatment while at the facility.

What I find interesting about the case is the way it illustrates the mechanisms of privilege. She isn’t getting special treatment in the way people usually mean it. Her meals weren’t being catered to her cell, she wasn’t having visitors freely… she wasn’t getting anything that wasn’t already available in the prison system one way or another (including the offer to stay at the pay-to-stay prison). What she was given was leniency and access. Where a ‘regular’ person might have to work for privileges (good behavior, befriending guards, exchanges of other sorts), she got them more or less automatically. Privilege here isn’t extra stuff – the judge didn’t break any rules in her sentencing, and even her priors were conducted at least loosely within the bounds of the law – it’s the way the wiggle room played out around her that instantiates the privilege. Lawyers, judges, corrections officers, and other people in power could theoretically, extend these benefits (largely the benefit of the doubt) to anyone they pleased. The system as a whole allows for the discretion of the authorities. Given other circumstances, it could be the default behavior for the system. That it is not gives us a lot of room for the exercise of privilege in this sense.

Just as interesting, I think, is the way public discourse is proceeding. Yes, a lot of it is dumb (and way less of it needs to be taken up by ‘traditional’ news media/blogs… E! and PerezHilton exist for a reason), but some groups (like the morning show I listen to on Latino 96.3) are using it as a platform for wider discussions of police behavior in general, and community perceptions of fairness. Due to the constraints of the medium, of course, the discussion isn’t as deep as we might like… but it does touch on a lot of important issues (what is’special treatment?’ what might fairness look like? what issues aren’t being addressed the way the system is set up now? if the system was better, would we be able to better enforce it?), and that’s really cool.