-------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-paris14jun14,1,7763438.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage>http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/front/la-me-paris14jun14,1,7763438.story?coll=la-headlines-frontpage
From the Los Angeles Times
Hilton will do more time than most, analysis finds
<snip>
The Times analyzed 2 million jail releases and found 1,500 cases since July 2002 that like Hilton's involved defendants who had been arrested for drunk driving and later sentenced to jail after a probation violation or driving without a license.
Had Hilton left jail for good after four days, her stint behind bars would have been similar to those served by 60% of those inmates.
But after a judge sent her back to jail Friday, Hilton's attorney announced that she would serve the full 23 days. That means that Hilton will end up serving more time than 80% of other people in similar situations.
The findings came as some critics accused Baca of showing favoritism to Hilton and as the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors launched an investigation into whether the multimillionaire received special treatment because of her wealth and fame.
The data also underscore the profound effect of the Sheriff's Department's early-release program, which sets inmates free before their sentences are up to ease overcrowding.
Before the early-release program began in 2002, inmates with cases similar to Hilton's were sentenced to terms that amounted to an average of 23 days, the same as Hilton is expected to serve. They actually served 20 days. After the program began, the average term was 14 days, with inmates actually serving an average of four days.
---------------------------------
This article misses the relevant issues completely. What makes this study worthless is right here:
---------------------------------
Los Angeles County Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer made it clear when he sentenced Hilton that she was not to be released early. His comments were included in commitment papers the court sent to the jail.
On previous occasions, jail officials have ignored orders from judges to keep particular inmates in jail for their full sentences, saying that they first must comply with a federal court's restrictions on overcrowding. But sheriff's officials pledged before Hilton's arrival that she would serve 23 days, after calculating discounts for good behavior.
----------------------------------
It's that "on previous occasions" bit. How many occasions? The allegation of special treatment by the LA Sheriff's Department does not concern the raw amount of time she is spending in jail. It concerns (1) the fact that her release directly violated her sentencing instructions by the judge; and (2) the fact that the Sheriff released her due to "medical" reasons, which undoubtedly almost never happens. This the LA Times study did not bother to concern itself with at all. What conclusion am I supposed to draw from "on previous occasions"? That it's happened before (presumably--by the use of the plural--at least twice before)? That doesn't show Paris did not receive special treatment for her early release.
The only way in which Paris could arguably have been treated unfairly harshly is by the *judge*, who in his sentencing order insisted that she not be released early. But this is not really unfair either. Paris Hilton is worth millions. The judge could have (and should have) believed that a simple fine and a few days in jail would not be a sufficient deterrent for her. Most people may get this sentence, but the fine actually impacts their lives negatively. Not so for Paris. So why should the judge not insist on more jail time for somebody in her financial position, for whom fines would not work as a deterrent for violating probation or driving with a suspended license? All this to say, this article appears to be sympathetic to Paris, but it does not in fact show either (1) that she did not receive special treatment; or (2) that she received harsher treatment. The propositions that Paris received special treatment by her early release and that she is now--after being sent back to jail--being treated "fairly" (within the context of the U.S. judicial system, of course, which is anything but fair anyway) by the State of California remain the most likely to be true.