The state legislature could change that - and should. Drunk drivers kill more Americans each year than terrorists. Understand? People like Paris Hilton kill more people than people like Osama bin Laden. Get the picture? They are public enemies.

Reckless driving is a minor offense. A person can be guilty of reckless driving because they are changing the radio station or their kids are screaming in the back seat. There is never an occasion when a DWI/DUI should be reduced to reckless driving.



Perhaps but that is conjecture. We simply don't know if that is true or not. Nevertheless we must not overlook that the reason they got the charges reduced was because of their money. The judge knew that. It is not any more unreasonable for the judge to treat her more strictly because of her money than it was for the prosecutor to treat her more lenient because of her money.



Judges are allowed to use discretion now. So we don't need to "start" allowing them something they are already allowed. Judges are often lenient to poor defendants for a variety reasons. The poor are given a public defender in an attempt to level the playing field. Public defenders are often either less experienced, overloaded or both. So it doesn't level the playing field completely by any means. It is a good system but not a perfect one.



I have seen her picture on the front of teen magazines more than once. Teenage girls that read these magazines obviously follow her and many other celebrities. Again, if these celebrities are going to profit off from the public they need to be held accountable when they betray the public too.

Now I see our Laz and The Pastor in conflict.

Shane, that is fully bogus. Anyone who has been significantly involved in the court system will know better. CyberGuy has, and I have.

To your first answer about laws to make it mandatory. Not going to work as I said it is up to the prosecutors what the decide to prosecute. They are overloaded with case loads. If the state starts making prosecution mandatory it will backlog the system for years longer than it already is. Already a criminal case takes six to 12 months to go to trial under the best circumstances.

My solution is more effective. After the first DUI charge make ait a law that the car they drive has to have one of those breath analyzers that would test their breath and only allow the car to start if they are sober. That technology is out there NOW. It would be far more effective than making laws that simply will not work since one cannot force prosecution in any case.

It is a known fact that if you do not give some incentive to plea bargain the charge down people will go to court and take their changes with the courts.

TO the second response

Already in Riverside where I live the DA will not plea bargain much and the results is the courts are overloaded with criminal cases. So much so that there is no room for civil cases. People have to go to LA or Orange County to file civil cases because Riverside just does not have the time or judges to try civil cases. They are even bring judges out of retirement to help with the case loads and it is not enough.

As to the reckless driving response.

Yes that can be the case. I to have been guilty of changing the radio station and coming up on a red light that changed while I was looking down. I almost hit a car. Scared me really bad. Both of us I imagine. Fortunely no cops were around and no one was hurt. I did manage to avoid the guy by some fancy manuvering. But from what you said that would be reckless driving. I doubt that if caught I would have served prison time for that if caught by the cops though as I was stone sober. Still from your definition I was guilty of reckless driving.

On Jan 1 2008 it is illegal to drive while holding a cell phone. Still only an infraction though with a stiff fine. Everyone get those Bluetooth earpieces now.

I looked at that light later in the day. It changed from Green to red with only about 1 and half second yellow light. Far to little. No wonder it caught me by surprise.

Believe me I do not change radio stations while driving on city streets any more. I use the auto settings now. I am NOT defending my action just stating we all have been guilty of changing the radio while driving and bad things can happen if we do that.

Shane has a point but it just did not come out right.
If one hires high priced lawyers one can get the same kind of justice Paris did and I mean the lesser sentence from a DUI charge. But one has to have the means to pay for those lawyers.

Case in point.

My sister had her husband put in prison and the judge fined her husband $800,000 as well. Well federal law states that retirement funds are untouchable by federal fines. My brother in law had $200,000 in retirement fund. My sister needed that money to run the house while her husband was in jail.
The Feds tried to get that money but the judge ruled that the money could not be touched as federal law mandated. Yet the Federal lawyer told my sister she would keep appealing until my sister ran out of money or until she sighned over half of that money to the feds and signed a document saying she would not sue later for that money.

My sister out of money caved in. Had she had the funds and the feds knew that they would not have tried that tactic for they were on legal ground they could not win if the other side had the funds to fight them.

My sister could not. So yes if you are rich you are more able to take advantage of the loopholes in the legal system than if you are not simply because you cannot afford the $100 plus fees lawyers charge per hour.

Now its up to three bills an hour, and the meter keeps ticking. But as for plea bargains, of course that happens all the time. When I had a practice, one of my clients was charged with multiple felonies, and I sat down with the deputy DA and we bargained it way down. This guy wasn't a fancy-pants, either. Blue collar. I am just saying that Paris' plea bargain didn't have to be the result of dad's money.

Yeah $300 an hour is what I heard to. It is expensive to get a good lawyer but it is far better to get a good lawyer than the free ones the state provides. They do not alwsys get you the best deal possible.

I have been sitting around AA rooms for over 21 years and can count the number of DWIs dropped to reckless driving I am aware of on one hand and in each of those cases it happened because a high-price lawyer was involved.

I agree that highpriced lawyers do get one off to a lessor charge. So what?. If one can afford a high priced lawyer then by all means get one when one needs it.

My uncle's girlfriend changed him with assault and battery which was untrue. The DA offered him a plea bargain where he would have to go to jail for three years but he could be out in 18 months OR if he goes to trial 9 years prison sentence.

My uncle know he was innocent and in the pretrail his highpriced lawyer shot down the testimony of the woman making the charges with proof from Xrays and doctors testimoniesand even got the woman to contradict her statement she made to police at the time of the charge, until the DA just decided to drop the charges. It cost my uncle $30,000 but he did not have to go to jail for something he did not do.

So yes a high priced lawyer can get you off to a lesser charge. But that is allowed by our legal system. If you can afford it why not take advantage of it. Wouldn't you if you had legal problems? Is it fair to hold that against people who can afford the high priced lawyers and are rich?

I have had legal problems and I was innocent too. A lawyer that attends our church handled my case and the charges were dropped due to lack of evidence. That is not the point.

I don't believe very many people charged with DUI/DWI are innocent and hiring high price lawyers to get keep them free. A police officer pulls them over, they either take a breathalyser and fail or refuse to take it because they know they are drunk. The cases are not too hard for prosecutors to win and there is little reason for them to want to plea bargain.

In Paris' case, she lost her license and continued to drive anyway. In essence she was refusing to accept the lighter punishment she received when she in fact deserved a more severe punishment to begin with. She was snobbing her nose at the justice system. It is good that she has been put in her place.