July 7, 2010
Lindsay Lohan provides yet another opportunity to debate the (un)real aspects of celebrity sentencing justiceAs detailed in this piece from the always hard-hitting US Magazine, which is headlined "Lindsay Lohan Likely Won't Serve 90 Days," a former child star and current celebrity train wreck is putting another spotlight on how wayward celebrities get treated by criminal justice systems. Here are the basics:
She may have been ordered to serve 90 days in the slammer, but Lindsay Lohan probably won't stay behind bars for that long.
Steve Whitmore, a spokesperson for the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department, tells Access Hollywood that generally non-violent females, such as the 24-year-old actress, are eligible to serve just 25 percent of their sentence. In Lohan's case, that would wind up at around 22 days. The reason: Severe jail overcrowding. However, it remains unclear whether the judge will forbid an early release.
Three years ago, the actress served just 84 minutes of a 24-hour sentence at the women's Century Regional Detention Facility in Lynwood, Calif. She will likely report to the same facility July 20 when she is required to surrender.
And don't expect Lohan to get heckled by other inmates, either: She'll probably be held in seclusion, away from the general population, for her safety.
That's what happened to Paris Hilton in 2007. She was sentenced to 45 days in jail for violating the terms of her probation by repeatedly driving with a suspended license. She ended up serving 23 days.
July 7, 2010 at 09:02 AM | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Lindsay Lohan provides yet another opportunity to debate the (un)real aspects of celebrity sentencing justice:
Is Lohan getting special treatment? The article suggests that any non-violent prisoner in Lohan’s situation would be eligible for early release. The judge was probably aware of this when she imposed a 90-day sentence. Obviously, we are more aware of it because Lohan is famous, but it sounds like she is simply getting the deal anyone in L.A. County would get.
Posted by: Marc Shepherd | Jul 7, 2010 10:57:52 AM
I'm curious whether Lohan will face a contempt charge for her f-bomb fingernail design in court? See: http://marquee.blogs.cnn.com/2010/07/07/lindsay-lohan-wears-profane-manicure-in-court/.
Posted by: Brooks Holland | Jul 7, 2010 12:57:04 PM
My theory that beautiful women never go to jail has been refuted. Well, back to the drawing boards.
Posted by: anon 1 | Jul 7, 2010 1:26:22 PM
If her fingernail had said "the draft" instead of "u," we know it would be constitutionally protected expression. See Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971).
Of course, there hasn't been a draft in Little Miss Lindsay's lifetime, so she may not even know what it is.
Posted by: Kent Scheidegger | Jul 7, 2010 1:35:57 PM
well said, mr. shepard. the only special treatment here appears to exist in prof. berman's mind. in fact, if i recall, ms. hilton served far more time than she would have if she had been anyone else.
Posted by: ziemer | Jul 7, 2010 3:22:10 PM
yep if anything she's catching greef BECSUE she's famous why else would she still be on probaton 3 YEARS LATER for non-felony charges. that's just plain idiotic
Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 8, 2010 2:54:04 AM
Twenty-two days is a long time to be locked in a cell. So rest easy, punishment enthusiasts. I'm certain she'll feel as though she's been thoroughly punished by the time it's over.
Posted by: John K | Jul 8, 2010 10:42:10 AM
The thing about DUI's is that such offenders are harmless if they are not allowed to drive. A more rational policy would be to revoke the offender's license and prohibit the offender from drivng or owning an automobile. Have them post a bond commensurate with their means to be forfeit if they don't stay off the road. If they violate that prohibition then it may make some sense to jail them at that point.
Posted by: Jardinero1 | Jul 8, 2010 12:15:54 PM
This blowhard has already expressed so much contempt for the judicial system that I imagine the lesson will be lost. Knowingly violating probation conditions on multiple occasions, having multiple DUIs, and painting "fuck you" on a middle finger as a disrespectful message to the court during the sentencing hearing...I'm guessing more than three weeks in a special cell is needed.
And the fact that some publicly-visible commentators are claiming that she is getting railroaded because she's a celeb is probably only feeding the dog more. In the real world (as opposed to the self-entitled Hollywood world), after committing those actions, 90 days without early release (which, naturally, won't be her condition) would feel like a swedish massage.
Posted by: Res ipsa | Jul 8, 2010 12:24:05 PM
"This blowhard has already expressed so much contempt for the judicial system that I imagine the lesson will be lost. Knowingly violating probation conditions on multiple occasions, having multiple DUIs, and painting "fuck you" on a middle finger as a disrespectful message to the court during the sentencing hearing"
No offense Res but when the court is acting like an ASS dont' be suprised when it get's the finger! like i said 3 years of court dates and hearing and wasted time and resouces of a probation office over mistermeaner charges is a CRININAL act!
GOOD for her!
Posted by: rodsmith | Jul 8, 2010 3:17:30 PM
John K --
"I'm certain she'll feel as though she's been thoroughly punished by the time it's over."
How do you know that?
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 9, 2010 9:36:51 PM
As I said...because 22 days is a long time to spend in a cage.
Posted by: John K | Jul 9, 2010 11:38:06 PM
In other words, you don't know -- as I thought.
Not that it's a cage, either. It's a dorm room. She'll spend most of her time in the open area watching TV and signing autographs.
And for that matter, not that it's 22 days. Last time, it was, what?, 48 minutes out of a seven day sentence?
As usual, the criminal justice system is something less than the sabre-tooth tiger you describe. It's a house cat.
She's a spoiled, self-involved, indulged, unrepentant brat who drives around town drunk and stoned as it pleases her. The law is for other people; court dates are for other people. She whines and cries about her "human rights" (even you must be rolling your eyes at that one) while surreptitiously telling the court "f**k u" as she pretends (but not very convincingly) to be contrite.
Her devil-may-care drugged driving is going to cripple or kill someone if it keeps up. Does that matter to you? I seriously doubt this so-called sentence will affect her only-I-count behavior, but I'm glad that at least an attempt is being made, however late in coming.
Posted by: Bill Otis | Jul 10, 2010 1:56:52 PM