Fine her a years earnings and give it to innocent victims of bad driving.big jimmy wrote:Yes she is Jockey...she violated her orginal sentence , banned from driving for 6 months...... caught driving three times while banned..so if society lets that go then what happens after that ?.do we let society break down and let people do what they want ?...thats anarchy in waiting.....people like Paris Hilton are role models for low educated low aspirational people..and sadly..they are they people who commit most crime...so yes..she is a danger to society ..she sets a bad example..." I can flout the law and get away with it "..I hope she comes out of this a changed person..but I doubt it...Jockey wrote:Putting people in prison is middle aged thinking. Prisons should only be used for protecting dangerous people from society. Is Paris Hilton a threat to society?
Paris Hilton
-
The understudy
- Ace
- Posts: 1293
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 12:16 pm
- Location: Hua Hin, Bangkok, Berlin, L. A. rotating
[quote="Jockey"][quote="big jimmy"][quote="Jockey"]Putting people in prison is middle aged thinking. Prisons should only be used for protecting dangerous people from society. Is Paris Hilton a threat to society? 
[/quote]
Yes she is Jockey...she violated her orginal sentence , banned from driving for 6 months...... caught driving three times while banned..so if society lets that go then what happens after that ?.do we let society break down and let people do what they want ?...thats anarchy in waiting.....people like Paris Hilton are role models for low educated low aspirational people..and sadly..they are they people who commit most crime...so yes..she is a danger to society ..she sets a bad example..." I can flout the law and get away with it "..I hope she comes out of this a changed person..but I doubt it...[/quote]
Fine her a years earnings and give it to innocent victims of bad driving.[/quote]
In adition to her Jail sentence of course you mean that right Jockey?
Or just pay up?
[/quote]Yes she is Jockey...she violated her orginal sentence , banned from driving for 6 months...... caught driving three times while banned..so if society lets that go then what happens after that ?.do we let society break down and let people do what they want ?...thats anarchy in waiting.....people like Paris Hilton are role models for low educated low aspirational people..and sadly..they are they people who commit most crime...so yes..she is a danger to society ..she sets a bad example..." I can flout the law and get away with it "..I hope she comes out of this a changed person..but I doubt it...[/quote]
Fine her a years earnings and give it to innocent victims of bad driving.[/quote]
In adition to her Jail sentence of course you mean that right Jockey?
Or just pay up?
In Love with Hua Hin since 19naughty9 and it ain't fading!!!
(My fable for All Things Japanese knows no boundaries!) Proud Student of Stamford University Hua Hin Campus from 1999 to 2004 (5th Batch of Graduates.)
“Once you survive Stamford U Hua Hin Campus only you can survive anything!!!”
(My fable for All Things Japanese knows no boundaries!) Proud Student of Stamford University Hua Hin Campus from 1999 to 2004 (5th Batch of Graduates.)
“Once you survive Stamford U Hua Hin Campus only you can survive anything!!!”
-
Wanderlust
- Legend
- Posts: 2862
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2004 12:27 pm
- Location: Hua Hin
In essence I agree with Jockey; prisons should be used to keep dangerous people from directly hurting others, and some more imaginative alternative punishments should be found to fit various crimes. Prison should be the last resort normally. In the case of celebrities, or rich and famous people, there should always be some element of financial punishment, but also something that if they offend again, threatens their whole way of life. Anyone who committs a crime should be given active and ongoing 'reminders' to keep them on the straight and narrow; for most people the visible presence of the police is enough, but for some it isn't. In the case of hardened criminals, prison is no deterrent for them, so either time spent in prison has to be made more unpleasant, or an alternative punishment has to be found.
For someone like Paris Hilton the worst punishment I can think of is not allowing her any publicity for, let's say, two years; no photos in the media, no interviews, no TV work, nothing. This has the added benefit that we don't have to suffer the saga of her life as well, and might mean she disappears from the media forever!
For someone like Paris Hilton the worst punishment I can think of is not allowing her any publicity for, let's say, two years; no photos in the media, no interviews, no TV work, nothing. This has the added benefit that we don't have to suffer the saga of her life as well, and might mean she disappears from the media forever!
-
redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
hilton
big boy, thats sad as in f'in sad that a pathetic story like this makes the front pages of every tabloid in the world.
jockey, your point of view of about prisons is middle aged thinking too. if i & most other people had there way, we would build more prisons to lock up the parasites that infest societies throughout the world these days, especially those that have money & think they can buy there way out of trouble time after time.next you'll be telling us that o j simpson was really innocent ??
jockey, your point of view of about prisons is middle aged thinking too. if i & most other people had there way, we would build more prisons to lock up the parasites that infest societies throughout the world these days, especially those that have money & think they can buy there way out of trouble time after time.next you'll be telling us that o j simpson was really innocent ??
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
I found the following essay on the internet. Would anyone really disagree with it? I think it is spot on! I would add locking up people for taking drugs (not selling them) is illogical.
AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PRISON America's prisons have been called graduate schools for crime. It stands to reason: Take a group of people, strip them of possessions and privacy, expose them to constant threats of violence, overcrowd their cell- block, deprive them of meaningful work, and the result is an embittered underclass more intent on getting even with society than contributing to it. Prisons take the nonviolent offender and make him live by violence. They take the nonviolent offender and make him a hardened killer. America has to wake up and realize that the current structure of our penal system is failing terribly. The government has to devise new ways to punish the guilty, and still manage to keep American citizens satisfied that our prison system is still effective. Americans pay a great deal for prisons to fail so badly. Like all big government solutions, they are expensive. In the course of my studies dealing with the criminal justice system, I have learned that the government spends approximately eighty-thousand dollars to build one cell, and $28,000 per year to keep a prisoner locked up. That's about the same as the cost of sending a student to Harvard. Because of overcrowding, it is estimated that more than ten-billion dollars in construction is needed to create sufficient space for just the current prison population. The plain truth is that the very nature of prison, no matter how humane society attempts to make it, produces an environment that is inevitably devastating to its residents. Even if their release is delayed by longer sentences, those residents inevitably return to damage the community, and we are paying top dollar to make this possible. Why should tax payers be forced to pay amounts to keep nonviolent criminals sitting in prison cells where they become bitter and more likely to repeat their offenses when they are released? Instead, why not put them to work outside prison where they could pay back the victims of their crimes? The government should initiate work programs; where the criminal is given a job and must relinquish his or her earnings to the victim of their crime until the mental and physical damages of their victims are sufficed. A court will determine how much money the criminal will have to pay for his restitution costs, and what job the criminal will have to do to pay back that restitution. The most obvious benefit of this approach is that it takes care of the victim, the forgotten person in the current system. Those who experience property crime deserve more than just the satisfaction of seeing the offender go to prison. Daniel Van Ness, president of Justice Fellowship, has said: All the legal systems which helped form western law emphasize the need for offenders to settle with victims. The offense was seen as primarily a violation against the victim. While the common welfare had been violated and the community therefore had an interest and responsibility in seeing that the wrong was addressed and the offender punished, the offense was not considered primarily a crime against the state as it is today. (76) Restitution offers the criminal a means to restore himself-to undergo a real change of character. Mere imprisonment cannot do this; nothing can destroy a man's soul more surely than living without useful work and purpose. Feodor Dostoevsky, a prisoner for ten years during czarist repression, wrote, If one wanted to crush, to annihilate a man utterly, to inflict on him the most terrible of punishments...one need only give him work on a completely useless and irrational character (77). This is exactly what goes on in the make work approach of our prisons and it is one of the contributing factors to prison violence. To quote Jack Kemp, author of Crime and Punishment in Modern America: The idea that a burglar should return stolen goods, pay for damage to the house he broke into and pay his victims for the time lost from work to appear at a trial meets with universal support from the American people. There is, of course, a reason that the concept of restitution appeals to America's sense of justice. Restitution also provides an alternative to imprisonment for nonviolent criminals, reducing the need for taxpayers to continue building prisons. (54) Working with the purpose of paying back someone that has been wronged allows a criminal to understand and deal with the real consequences of his actions. Restitution would be far less expensive than the current system. Experience shows that the cost per prisoner can be as low as ten percent of that of incarceration, depending on the degree of supervision necessary. Removing nonviolent offenders from prison would also relieve overcrowding, eliminating the necessity of appropriating billions more public dollars for prison construction. Restitution would deter crime with the same effectiveness as prison. Prisons themselves have not done much of a job when it comes to deterrence. Nations with the highest incarceration rates often have the highest crime rates. But studies of model restitution programs demonstrate that they greatly reduce the incidence of further crime, since they restore a sense of individual responsibility, making the offender more likely to be able to adjust to society. Reducing recidivism is the most direct way to reduce crime. Criminal justice authorities also tell us that it is not so much the type of punishment that deters crime, but rather the certainty of punishment. With respect to deterrence, virtually any sanction, imposed swiftly and surely, has a deterrent effect. An effectively run restitution program will deter crime. It is believed that in many cases, aggressive restitution programs would be a greater deterrent than the threat of prison. To quote author David Simon, I remember talking in prison with a hardened convict who had spent nineteen of his thirty-eight years locked up. He was in for a heavy narcotics offense that drew a mandatory life sentence. How in the world could you have done it? Simon asked. I used to be a rod carrier, the convict answered, on the World Trade Center building-eighty floors up, getting eighteen dollars an hour. One misstep and I was dead. With hash I could make $300,000 a week. One misstep and I was in prison. Better odds. (Simon 75) The immediate payoff of crime is so great that many are willing to risk prison. The certainty of restitution, by requiring payment, takes the profit out of crime. The assets of organized crime members and big time narcotics dealers, for example, could be seized at arrest and confiscated on conviction, with the offender ordered to make further restitution through work programs. That is real punishment. Many Americans believe in our current prison system, and also believe that it is an effective form of punishment for the criminal. Some would say that criminals can live decent, civilized lives in prison and graduate to decent, civilized lives in the free world. My question to these people is; how can criminals live civilized lives in an environment that only offers chaos and mild forms of anarchy? It is well known what goes on behind closed doors in prison; terrible atrocities that make the blood boil and the stomach curdle are the only thing these prisoners are accustomed to while they are in prison. Most inmates learn little of value during their confinement behind bars, mostly because they adapt to prison in immature and often self-defeating ways. As a result, they leave prison no better-and sometimes considerably worse-than when they went in. The first time offender who is arrested for burglary does not belong in a prison where the only thing he will learn is how to become a better and more violent burglar. Instead, why not make him pay restitution to the store owner whom he robbed? In my opinion, if this form of punishment was initiated for the lesser offender, our prisons will have the vacancies to incarcerate the Jeffery Dahmers of the world in prison for life, instead of the infamous ten to twenty, out in five. Crime is the result of morally responsible people making wrong moral decisions, for which they must be held accountable. The just and necessary response to such behavior is punishment, which may include restitution for community service, stiff fines, or , in cases where the offender is dangerous, prison. But let's not kid ourselves any longer. The prison was not designed to cure the individual; it was made to lock him up.
AN ALTERNATIVE FOR PRISON America's prisons have been called graduate schools for crime. It stands to reason: Take a group of people, strip them of possessions and privacy, expose them to constant threats of violence, overcrowd their cell- block, deprive them of meaningful work, and the result is an embittered underclass more intent on getting even with society than contributing to it. Prisons take the nonviolent offender and make him live by violence. They take the nonviolent offender and make him a hardened killer. America has to wake up and realize that the current structure of our penal system is failing terribly. The government has to devise new ways to punish the guilty, and still manage to keep American citizens satisfied that our prison system is still effective. Americans pay a great deal for prisons to fail so badly. Like all big government solutions, they are expensive. In the course of my studies dealing with the criminal justice system, I have learned that the government spends approximately eighty-thousand dollars to build one cell, and $28,000 per year to keep a prisoner locked up. That's about the same as the cost of sending a student to Harvard. Because of overcrowding, it is estimated that more than ten-billion dollars in construction is needed to create sufficient space for just the current prison population. The plain truth is that the very nature of prison, no matter how humane society attempts to make it, produces an environment that is inevitably devastating to its residents. Even if their release is delayed by longer sentences, those residents inevitably return to damage the community, and we are paying top dollar to make this possible. Why should tax payers be forced to pay amounts to keep nonviolent criminals sitting in prison cells where they become bitter and more likely to repeat their offenses when they are released? Instead, why not put them to work outside prison where they could pay back the victims of their crimes? The government should initiate work programs; where the criminal is given a job and must relinquish his or her earnings to the victim of their crime until the mental and physical damages of their victims are sufficed. A court will determine how much money the criminal will have to pay for his restitution costs, and what job the criminal will have to do to pay back that restitution. The most obvious benefit of this approach is that it takes care of the victim, the forgotten person in the current system. Those who experience property crime deserve more than just the satisfaction of seeing the offender go to prison. Daniel Van Ness, president of Justice Fellowship, has said: All the legal systems which helped form western law emphasize the need for offenders to settle with victims. The offense was seen as primarily a violation against the victim. While the common welfare had been violated and the community therefore had an interest and responsibility in seeing that the wrong was addressed and the offender punished, the offense was not considered primarily a crime against the state as it is today. (76) Restitution offers the criminal a means to restore himself-to undergo a real change of character. Mere imprisonment cannot do this; nothing can destroy a man's soul more surely than living without useful work and purpose. Feodor Dostoevsky, a prisoner for ten years during czarist repression, wrote, If one wanted to crush, to annihilate a man utterly, to inflict on him the most terrible of punishments...one need only give him work on a completely useless and irrational character (77). This is exactly what goes on in the make work approach of our prisons and it is one of the contributing factors to prison violence. To quote Jack Kemp, author of Crime and Punishment in Modern America: The idea that a burglar should return stolen goods, pay for damage to the house he broke into and pay his victims for the time lost from work to appear at a trial meets with universal support from the American people. There is, of course, a reason that the concept of restitution appeals to America's sense of justice. Restitution also provides an alternative to imprisonment for nonviolent criminals, reducing the need for taxpayers to continue building prisons. (54) Working with the purpose of paying back someone that has been wronged allows a criminal to understand and deal with the real consequences of his actions. Restitution would be far less expensive than the current system. Experience shows that the cost per prisoner can be as low as ten percent of that of incarceration, depending on the degree of supervision necessary. Removing nonviolent offenders from prison would also relieve overcrowding, eliminating the necessity of appropriating billions more public dollars for prison construction. Restitution would deter crime with the same effectiveness as prison. Prisons themselves have not done much of a job when it comes to deterrence. Nations with the highest incarceration rates often have the highest crime rates. But studies of model restitution programs demonstrate that they greatly reduce the incidence of further crime, since they restore a sense of individual responsibility, making the offender more likely to be able to adjust to society. Reducing recidivism is the most direct way to reduce crime. Criminal justice authorities also tell us that it is not so much the type of punishment that deters crime, but rather the certainty of punishment. With respect to deterrence, virtually any sanction, imposed swiftly and surely, has a deterrent effect. An effectively run restitution program will deter crime. It is believed that in many cases, aggressive restitution programs would be a greater deterrent than the threat of prison. To quote author David Simon, I remember talking in prison with a hardened convict who had spent nineteen of his thirty-eight years locked up. He was in for a heavy narcotics offense that drew a mandatory life sentence. How in the world could you have done it? Simon asked. I used to be a rod carrier, the convict answered, on the World Trade Center building-eighty floors up, getting eighteen dollars an hour. One misstep and I was dead. With hash I could make $300,000 a week. One misstep and I was in prison. Better odds. (Simon 75) The immediate payoff of crime is so great that many are willing to risk prison. The certainty of restitution, by requiring payment, takes the profit out of crime. The assets of organized crime members and big time narcotics dealers, for example, could be seized at arrest and confiscated on conviction, with the offender ordered to make further restitution through work programs. That is real punishment. Many Americans believe in our current prison system, and also believe that it is an effective form of punishment for the criminal. Some would say that criminals can live decent, civilized lives in prison and graduate to decent, civilized lives in the free world. My question to these people is; how can criminals live civilized lives in an environment that only offers chaos and mild forms of anarchy? It is well known what goes on behind closed doors in prison; terrible atrocities that make the blood boil and the stomach curdle are the only thing these prisoners are accustomed to while they are in prison. Most inmates learn little of value during their confinement behind bars, mostly because they adapt to prison in immature and often self-defeating ways. As a result, they leave prison no better-and sometimes considerably worse-than when they went in. The first time offender who is arrested for burglary does not belong in a prison where the only thing he will learn is how to become a better and more violent burglar. Instead, why not make him pay restitution to the store owner whom he robbed? In my opinion, if this form of punishment was initiated for the lesser offender, our prisons will have the vacancies to incarcerate the Jeffery Dahmers of the world in prison for life, instead of the infamous ten to twenty, out in five. Crime is the result of morally responsible people making wrong moral decisions, for which they must be held accountable. The just and necessary response to such behavior is punishment, which may include restitution for community service, stiff fines, or , in cases where the offender is dangerous, prison. But let's not kid ourselves any longer. The prison was not designed to cure the individual; it was made to lock him up.
I just can't believe so many of you on here think that the woman should not be punished for her crimes. I don't know why she was banned in the first place, but unless it was for something as simple as a parking offence, she would have been banned because she was breaking the laws of the road.
OK, those of you who are living in Thailand are used to people driving with zero discipline, but how many of you have winged on here about how dangerous it is, and how many people lose their lives through this deliberate ignoring of the rules of the road?
She was probably banned because she was doing something dangerous (by your own admissions, that could have been life threatening). They banned her from driving - the nice punishment you all seem to be saying fits this life threatening crime, but she just carried on doing it, sticking 2 fingers up at the authorities because her daddy was rich.
Little rich girls like that need the shock treatment of prison.
redzonerocker wrote:
I agree the events have been over-publicised, but then again, the world needs to know that these little rich kids are abusing the law, and trying to buy themselves out of trouble again. It is obviously a good news day when someone like this is put firmly in their place - just a shame her father and shrink were not put in the cells adjacent to her, because their crimes were as bad, if not worse.big boy, thats sad as in f'in sad that a pathetic story like this makes the front pages of every tabloid in the world
Championship Stoke City 3 - 0 Plymouth Argyle 
Points 48; Position 20
Points 48; Position 20
-
redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
crime & punishment
i think the justice system continually lets the victim & society in general down.
in the case of miss hilton, the sentence may seem severe but maybe it will teach her a lesson that she can't just buy her way out of trouble.
as for the other petty non violent criminals, they will continue to break the law because the deterrents aren't in place.the prisons are like holiday camps,i know this from experience of knowing a multitude of thieves, burglars, drug dealers & general riff raff that drink in my locals.
they dont intend to get a normal job, it doesnt pay enough & they dont want to get their hands dirty. what they earn from their life of crime more than compensates their short stints inside.
as for rehabilitating inmates? pure fantasy.most, if not all reoffend.fines remain unpaid & tagging doesn't work.
its this softly softly approach of the do gooders & human rights idiots that has led us to this sad, violent & out of control society.
meanwhile the victims are left to pick up the pieces & try to rebuild their lives, living in fear of the next time they will have their house burgled, car stolen or get mugged by some drug crazed junkie.
in the case of miss hilton, the sentence may seem severe but maybe it will teach her a lesson that she can't just buy her way out of trouble.
as for the other petty non violent criminals, they will continue to break the law because the deterrents aren't in place.the prisons are like holiday camps,i know this from experience of knowing a multitude of thieves, burglars, drug dealers & general riff raff that drink in my locals.
they dont intend to get a normal job, it doesnt pay enough & they dont want to get their hands dirty. what they earn from their life of crime more than compensates their short stints inside.
as for rehabilitating inmates? pure fantasy.most, if not all reoffend.fines remain unpaid & tagging doesn't work.
its this softly softly approach of the do gooders & human rights idiots that has led us to this sad, violent & out of control society.
meanwhile the victims are left to pick up the pieces & try to rebuild their lives, living in fear of the next time they will have their house burgled, car stolen or get mugged by some drug crazed junkie.
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.
Certainly. She's found a higher spirit already:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2100913,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,2100913,00.html
-
Guess
- Deceased
- Posts: 3470
- Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2005 3:01 pm
- Location: BangSaphan. Laurasia. Sub thumb
Quite right, especially as road traffic laws are in place to save lives. Anyone in the public eye should be even more aware and set an example no matter how big her tits are.big jimmy wrote: Yes she is Jockey...she violated her orginal sentence , banned from driving for 6 months...... caught driving three times while banned..so if society lets that go then what happens after that ?
[color=blue][size=134]Care in the community success story.[/size][/color]
As I've posited before, the lovely lady was so.... high so..... that she didn't open her mail.
She had others to do that and was never given the message.......
Never a thing like responsibility, is there? That was the crap defense to startt off with.
It must be something to do with the others' f...k" up, mustn't it?
Here's a thought for every man - don't get involved with the "god freak" who'll likely come out of prison in a few days, spreading all kinds of sh**.
If she gets out after 30 odd days, the local legistlature should be shot.
Sorry folks, I've had a few. I say it as I see it.
She had others to do that and was never given the message.......
Never a thing like responsibility, is there? That was the crap defense to startt off with.
It must be something to do with the others' f...k" up, mustn't it?
Here's a thought for every man - don't get involved with the "god freak" who'll likely come out of prison in a few days, spreading all kinds of sh**.
If she gets out after 30 odd days, the local legistlature should be shot.
Sorry folks, I've had a few. I say it as I see it.
-
redzonerocker
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4777
- Joined: Mon Apr 02, 2007 3:55 pm
- Location: England
paris
& so you should lomu.
she's just a spoilt little brat in the public eye setting a very poor example, along with her lawyer,her family & the rest of the entourage which have turned the situation into a bit of a media circus.
its sad how people try to manipulate society into believing she is some sort of victim being used as a scapegoat.
she's just a spoilt little brat in the public eye setting a very poor example, along with her lawyer,her family & the rest of the entourage which have turned the situation into a bit of a media circus.
its sad how people try to manipulate society into believing she is some sort of victim being used as a scapegoat.
Remember, no one can make you feel inferior without your consent.