Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by skadistic, Jun 7, 2007.
I get what you mean
but still no sympathies for that blonde bimbo
Yeah, that's a major blunder. Someone's going to lose his/her job over this I guess.
If you think she's treatet better for being a celebrity you miss the point.
She's treated better because she's rich.
That is depressing.
First OJ, now this...
But we're paying attention because she's a celebrity. Don't miss that point. This crap happens all the time, I'm sure, but you don't hear about it.
I think it's a bit harsh to put her on the same level as OJ. Although the point you're making I agree with...if it had been you or me, we'd still be there.
And not just for individuals, corporations and such benefit greatly from the legal system.
You're trying to see if we are hypocrites or not, well, we're not. But not becuase of what you think (omg he is a capitilist but thinks money shouldn't buy everything!!@!#$!), Justice is soppuse to be blind.
Looks like Al Sharpton is on board with the majority in this thread.
There's a first time for everything, I guess.
It's just because she's rich and a celebrity. I've known people who had heart conditions, diabetes and even cancer that were jailed for weeks on lesser charges. They just had constant monitoring and were given their medications.
So are you saying that everybody should have access to a high-priced lawyer or that lawyers should be limited in helping their clients so that everybody has the same low quality of legal representation? As far as I can tell, Paris Hilton got a legally available remedy.
She should be send to Chile for recovery. That cured Pinochet who was deadly ill when he left England into prime shape the moment he set foot on chilean soil.
No, I'm saying that the quality of the lawyer should play a much smaller role in the final decision, and that the judge uses their common sense instead of listening to a slick talking laywer talking about technicallities and the letter of the law( as opposedd to the spirit of the law).
So you are wanting to give Judges much more power to ignore legally valid arguments made by your lawyer or do you only want such a standard applied to Paris' lawyer?
Common sense>>>"leagally valid arguments" (AKA technicallities)
Except Paris didn't get a technicality. She got a remedy that is clearly spelled out in the statutes. She is also subject to a longer house arrest than she would have received jail time, so on days 23-40, she is having less freedom than should otherwise have had.
Why do judges need lawyers or prosecuters to check what to do with a certain case ? Shouldn't they have the knowledge themselves to decide what's right or wrong according the law ?
Justice should NOT be a commodity which can be bought and sold. This is one reason I am not in favor of a legal system which allows for high priced lawyers. IMO lawyers should be public servants. Talent and merit should be rewarded, but the system that exists now does not make for equal justice for all. This Hilton is just the latest high profile example of a broken judicial system for which money has perverted justice.
I'm with JollyRoger. Why are you guys so upset, why is it your business?
You're all just jealous of her wealth and celebrity.
Separate names with a comma.