G
Gandalf Grey
Guest
"Who Breaks a Butterfly upon a Wheel?"
By Bob Patterson
Created Jun 10 2007 - 10:39am
Anyone who laughed, smiled, or was jubilant at the picture of Paris Hilton
in the back of the police car last weekend, has all the necessary
qualifications to sanction the Spanish Inquisition and/or the Holocaust.
Yes, she is guilty. Yes, she should not get special treatment, but the
converse must, by the same logic, also follow. She should not be singled out
for justice that is harsher than is usual.
Does the concept of "one size fits all" justice apply?
What about this hypothetical? What if instead of just being pulled over, she
had been driving solo and cracked up her car? What if she had sustained
substantial injuries in this fictionalized example? Should the first officer
to arrive on the scene proceed with the booking process or would it be best
if he summoned an ambulance to take her to a hospital? If you said "take her
to the hospital," then you have conceded that sometimes circumstances
warrant making exceptions to the basic standard police procedures. So, if
she were taken to the hospital and then after being released from the
hospital, should she be rushed to the courtroom before getting some crutches
or should her case be postponed for a while until she can practice walking
with the cruthes? If she shows up in court six months later and still is on
crutches should she be sentenced to jail time? If you admit that at that
point she still deserves to be cut a break, then justice is not a binary
choice but something more akin to a bell curve or a gray scale.
What if mitigating circumstances are involved? She didn't hurt anyone; not
even herself. What if, instead of driving without a license, she had ordered
the invasion of another country for faulty reasons and started a string of
killings and maiming that continued for years? Should anyone be permitted to
that and walk away unskathed?
Do heiresses deserve harsh justice, while war criminals get a pass?
Would it be sufficient punishment if she were anesthetized and spent the
entire 45 days unconscious? Should she have been ordered to serve her
sentence on Devil's Island? Alcatraz? (Whoops, that's now a National Park
[1].) Spandau? Guantanamo?
Her parents deserve criticism for not giving her some real life coaching
about being responsible for the consequences of her actions before things
degenerated to the present imbroglio.
Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton have raised a valid point
about the plight of some citizens who don't have all the publicity and
sympathy for being in a similar plight. Maybe her early release will be a
good thing, if it brings this inequity to the public's attention.
Seeing the emotional frenzy her plight caused, brought to mind a rash of
"innocent man convicted of murder" stories that have been coming to light
recently. If she felt that bad being taken away for something she did; just
imagine how you would feel if you were arrested for a murder you hadn't
committed.
Wouldn't the public (fans and critics alike) be astounded if Paris came out
determined to become a crusader (can that word be used, these days?) for
victims of overzealous police and prosecutors? Can't you just picture her on
Oprah's TV show pitching for that cause? She'd probably get some moral
support from Larry Flynt and Sister Prajean. The mind reels at the prospect.
Keith Richards' ass was saved from jail by his "blind angel." Shouldn't he
speak up in favor of some "slack" for Paris Hilton?
Where's Jean Genet when you really need him?
The Republicans may be quite anxious to take the heat away from the topic of
war crimes. Will they be content to throw Paris under the Bus (has William
Safire done his etymological autopsy of that colloquialism?) as a
sacrificial lamb in place of all the politicians who deserve jail time?
should in her case, at least, perhaps recall the words in the Gospel
according to Saint John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her." (Chapter 8 Verse 7.)
Paris Hilton frittered away much of any sympathy she may have gained, with
the political machinations that secured her release after her initial time
in confinement. Were the dials , subsequently, turned too far in the
opposite direction?
Was she just acting to fake a medical condition? If she fooled the experts
in the Los Angeles court system, then perhaps she should be released and get
her next acting job offer from Martin Scorcese.
Commentators have said that her jail term seems excessive when compared to
other similar cases handled in the Los Angeles area.
If the citizens of the United States want to bring rich irresponsible brats
under control, shouldn't they be a bit more worried about a certain rich
fellow who was quoted in the New York Times, in 1967, about branding pledges
for a fraternity and went on to outrage legal experts for his treatment of
prisoners being held at Guantanamo?
[Was Iraq chock full of al Quaeda members in 2003, to the extent that after
many, many bombing raids, their members haven't been quantified let alone
identified, isolated, and eliminated? Could it be that the bombing a country
for invalid reasons, has turned them against the rich brat and his
authorized henchmen? How could a country, that was run by a ruthless
dictator with excessively brutal police interrogations, have successfully
harbored such a vast number of members of the opposition group? Could it be
that, at the time, they were just citizens trying to cope with an unpopular
leader (sounds reasonable) and that the subsequent continual bombing raids
have nudged them into mass enlistment into a a cause, rather than a foreign
group that is rather inaccessible to folks in a bombed out hulk of a nation?
(If you say that the agents of al Qaeda have unhindered access to the
citizens in the remote areas of the occupied land, then you have just
completely discounted the efforts of the Coalition military forces to
quarantine Iraq and have (essentially) negated the effectiveness of the
entire war.) We digress, but you get the point.]
It's crass just to even point out that maybe while she is serving her time
she will get to do some reading and then suggest Genet's Thief's Journal,
The Belly of the Beast, Dead Man Walking, The Ballad of Reading Gaol,
Papillion, or Thoreau's, Civil Disobedience.
Where is someone with the wisdom of Solomon when the need is so great? The
Sheriff blundered badly by letting her out when he did. To give her a pardon
would be unpardonable. To render her no sympathy whatsoever would be worthy
of the annual "Reinhard Heydrich Humanitarian of the Year" award. What would
be fair at this point?
Public Service wouldn't satisfy the ghouls who want harsh justice for her
and are willing to ignore the irony of a half billion dollar Presidential
Library for the other spoiled rich brat.
How much would a new woman's detention facility (to alleviate the crowed
conditions) cost? If she can afford a $25 million fine, why not dish it out
and let CNN and Fox get over it as fast as possible so that they can move on
to the next outrage? The fact that it would inevitably be dubbed the Zenda
Hilton (or something more clever) wouldn't make much difference, would it?
She has focused attention on a touchy subject and that was a public servide.
Her sentence should be no longer nor shorter than others in a simlar case
would have gotten.
Otherwise, since it's obvious that Bush will pardon Scooter Libby, why not
go "all in" and pardon them both now?
[If you didn't understand the headline; ask a Rolling Stones fan [2].]
Henry David Thoreau wrote: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,
the true place for a just man is also a prison .. . the only house in a
slave State in which a free man can abide with honor."
The disk jockey has been specifically forbidden to play Johnny Cash's Folsom
Prison Blues, Elvis' Jailhouse Rock, or Clint Eastwood's In the Jailhouse
Now. He will follow orders and play the Cool Hand Luke soundtrack album and
we make our escape out of here. Have a "commuted sentence" type of week.
_______
About author Bob Patterson has been a police beat reporter in Pennsylvania,
Nevada, and California. He has been an editor in Santa Monica and currently
is eking out a meager existence freelancing in the Los Angeles area. Contact
Bob at worldslaziestjournalist@yahoo.com [3]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson
By Bob Patterson
Created Jun 10 2007 - 10:39am
Anyone who laughed, smiled, or was jubilant at the picture of Paris Hilton
in the back of the police car last weekend, has all the necessary
qualifications to sanction the Spanish Inquisition and/or the Holocaust.
Yes, she is guilty. Yes, she should not get special treatment, but the
converse must, by the same logic, also follow. She should not be singled out
for justice that is harsher than is usual.
Does the concept of "one size fits all" justice apply?
What about this hypothetical? What if instead of just being pulled over, she
had been driving solo and cracked up her car? What if she had sustained
substantial injuries in this fictionalized example? Should the first officer
to arrive on the scene proceed with the booking process or would it be best
if he summoned an ambulance to take her to a hospital? If you said "take her
to the hospital," then you have conceded that sometimes circumstances
warrant making exceptions to the basic standard police procedures. So, if
she were taken to the hospital and then after being released from the
hospital, should she be rushed to the courtroom before getting some crutches
or should her case be postponed for a while until she can practice walking
with the cruthes? If she shows up in court six months later and still is on
crutches should she be sentenced to jail time? If you admit that at that
point she still deserves to be cut a break, then justice is not a binary
choice but something more akin to a bell curve or a gray scale.
What if mitigating circumstances are involved? She didn't hurt anyone; not
even herself. What if, instead of driving without a license, she had ordered
the invasion of another country for faulty reasons and started a string of
killings and maiming that continued for years? Should anyone be permitted to
that and walk away unskathed?
Do heiresses deserve harsh justice, while war criminals get a pass?
Would it be sufficient punishment if she were anesthetized and spent the
entire 45 days unconscious? Should she have been ordered to serve her
sentence on Devil's Island? Alcatraz? (Whoops, that's now a National Park
[1].) Spandau? Guantanamo?
Her parents deserve criticism for not giving her some real life coaching
about being responsible for the consequences of her actions before things
degenerated to the present imbroglio.
Reverend Jesse Jackson and Reverend Al Sharpton have raised a valid point
about the plight of some citizens who don't have all the publicity and
sympathy for being in a similar plight. Maybe her early release will be a
good thing, if it brings this inequity to the public's attention.
Seeing the emotional frenzy her plight caused, brought to mind a rash of
"innocent man convicted of murder" stories that have been coming to light
recently. If she felt that bad being taken away for something she did; just
imagine how you would feel if you were arrested for a murder you hadn't
committed.
Wouldn't the public (fans and critics alike) be astounded if Paris came out
determined to become a crusader (can that word be used, these days?) for
victims of overzealous police and prosecutors? Can't you just picture her on
Oprah's TV show pitching for that cause? She'd probably get some moral
support from Larry Flynt and Sister Prajean. The mind reels at the prospect.
Keith Richards' ass was saved from jail by his "blind angel." Shouldn't he
speak up in favor of some "slack" for Paris Hilton?
Where's Jean Genet when you really need him?
The Republicans may be quite anxious to take the heat away from the topic of
war crimes. Will they be content to throw Paris under the Bus (has William
Safire done his etymological autopsy of that colloquialism?) as a
sacrificial lamb in place of all the politicians who deserve jail time?
should in her case, at least, perhaps recall the words in the Gospel
according to Saint John: "He that is without sin among you, let him first
cast a stone at her." (Chapter 8 Verse 7.)
Paris Hilton frittered away much of any sympathy she may have gained, with
the political machinations that secured her release after her initial time
in confinement. Were the dials , subsequently, turned too far in the
opposite direction?
Was she just acting to fake a medical condition? If she fooled the experts
in the Los Angeles court system, then perhaps she should be released and get
her next acting job offer from Martin Scorcese.
Commentators have said that her jail term seems excessive when compared to
other similar cases handled in the Los Angeles area.
If the citizens of the United States want to bring rich irresponsible brats
under control, shouldn't they be a bit more worried about a certain rich
fellow who was quoted in the New York Times, in 1967, about branding pledges
for a fraternity and went on to outrage legal experts for his treatment of
prisoners being held at Guantanamo?
[Was Iraq chock full of al Quaeda members in 2003, to the extent that after
many, many bombing raids, their members haven't been quantified let alone
identified, isolated, and eliminated? Could it be that the bombing a country
for invalid reasons, has turned them against the rich brat and his
authorized henchmen? How could a country, that was run by a ruthless
dictator with excessively brutal police interrogations, have successfully
harbored such a vast number of members of the opposition group? Could it be
that, at the time, they were just citizens trying to cope with an unpopular
leader (sounds reasonable) and that the subsequent continual bombing raids
have nudged them into mass enlistment into a a cause, rather than a foreign
group that is rather inaccessible to folks in a bombed out hulk of a nation?
(If you say that the agents of al Qaeda have unhindered access to the
citizens in the remote areas of the occupied land, then you have just
completely discounted the efforts of the Coalition military forces to
quarantine Iraq and have (essentially) negated the effectiveness of the
entire war.) We digress, but you get the point.]
It's crass just to even point out that maybe while she is serving her time
she will get to do some reading and then suggest Genet's Thief's Journal,
The Belly of the Beast, Dead Man Walking, The Ballad of Reading Gaol,
Papillion, or Thoreau's, Civil Disobedience.
Where is someone with the wisdom of Solomon when the need is so great? The
Sheriff blundered badly by letting her out when he did. To give her a pardon
would be unpardonable. To render her no sympathy whatsoever would be worthy
of the annual "Reinhard Heydrich Humanitarian of the Year" award. What would
be fair at this point?
Public Service wouldn't satisfy the ghouls who want harsh justice for her
and are willing to ignore the irony of a half billion dollar Presidential
Library for the other spoiled rich brat.
How much would a new woman's detention facility (to alleviate the crowed
conditions) cost? If she can afford a $25 million fine, why not dish it out
and let CNN and Fox get over it as fast as possible so that they can move on
to the next outrage? The fact that it would inevitably be dubbed the Zenda
Hilton (or something more clever) wouldn't make much difference, would it?
She has focused attention on a touchy subject and that was a public servide.
Her sentence should be no longer nor shorter than others in a simlar case
would have gotten.
Otherwise, since it's obvious that Bush will pardon Scooter Libby, why not
go "all in" and pardon them both now?
[If you didn't understand the headline; ask a Rolling Stones fan [2].]
Henry David Thoreau wrote: "Under a government which imprisons any unjustly,
the true place for a just man is also a prison .. . the only house in a
slave State in which a free man can abide with honor."
The disk jockey has been specifically forbidden to play Johnny Cash's Folsom
Prison Blues, Elvis' Jailhouse Rock, or Clint Eastwood's In the Jailhouse
Now. He will follow orders and play the Cool Hand Luke soundtrack album and
we make our escape out of here. Have a "commuted sentence" type of week.
_______
About author Bob Patterson has been a police beat reporter in Pennsylvania,
Nevada, and California. He has been an editor in Santa Monica and currently
is eking out a meager existence freelancing in the Los Angeles area. Contact
Bob at worldslaziestjournalist@yahoo.com [3]
--
NOTICE: This post contains copyrighted material the use of which has not
always been authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material
available to advance understanding of
political, human rights, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues. I
believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright
Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107
"A little patience and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their
spells dissolve, and the people recovering their true sight, restore their
government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are
suffering deeply in spirit,
and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public
debt. But if the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have
patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning
back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at
stake."
-Thomas Jefferson