How The Special Treatment Investigation Is Tricky

The Associated Press and media finally spread triumphantly this morning the news that Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department opened an investigation Thursday into allegations Paris Hilton received special treatment during her jail time.

However, let me explain to you what this is all about. This is only a predication and based on assumptions.

Internal Inquiry

– will examine whether the hotel heiress was given free access to a cordless phone, instead of being forced to wait in line to use a pay phone at certain hours.

– will investigate claims Hilton received a new jail uniform, instead of the recycled ones given to many prisoners and her mail was delivered by a captain instead of trusties.

Now in a sense, most fans and decent people already understand that she was not suppose to be in jail, not to mention for 45 (excuse me, 23) days. Just because the media doesn’t talk about it, it doesn’t mean we have to ignore it.

What I’m assuming is that these special treatments were given to her because she is a celebrity. And not just any celebrity. She’s one of world’s most popular celebrities.

Of course, I can understand why she didn’t wait in line to use a pay phone. She was isolated from the rest of the population. But I could be wrong; this is just an assumption.

The claim that she received a new jail uniform instead of recycled ones was probably also because she is high profile inmate, but I don’t really understand why this happened.

And I also don’t understand the mail delivery claims.

All of this just to say that she might have received special treatment because of who she is. But, and this is a huge BUT, the media will not repeat this statement of mine. Most of them are egalitarians who can’t understand that she is not just anybody and must receive special attention.

I don’t know about you, but my view of matter is “who cares.” She didn’t belong in jail in the first place for the crime she supposedly committed, and if she did receive special treatment, she deserved it! Harsh, but that’s how I think.

From: Sabrinia
Time: July 13, 2007, 10:28 am

I agree with you. I think IF she did get special treatment then she more than deserved it especially since she spent WAY more time in jail for her charge (driving on a suspended license) than ANY “normal” person EVER would. So if they gave her a bit of special treatment then oh well. She deserved it for having to endure such an unusually harsh punishment for her alleged crime.
And like you said about her allegedly not waiting in line for a pay phone considering the fact she was supposed to be isolated from everyone how could she have waited with everyone? She wouldn’t have been isolated then.

From: thewaymouth
Time: July 13, 2007, 10:48 am

Ditto Mr PHS
& Sabrina – very well said.
Like I’ve said elsewhere, to me these “special treatment” extras are so petty & minor.
An investigation? Another waste of the taxpayer’s money, just like having Paris be in jail was.

& if anyone deserves blame such inconsequential niceties,
it’s the jail administrators, not Paris.
But you know who will take the blame.
It’s like she’s a mobster & she enforced how she would serve.
Give her & me a break.

From: Django
Time: July 13, 2007, 1:57 pm

True, it seems that a lot of hateful people (and you can see examples in the guestbook, as well as certain people in the media as highlighted on this site) are probably unhappy that Paris ever got out of jail, so of course they have to find something else to throw at her.

Considering Paris’s ongoing claustrophobia and stress during the time, I somehow doubt a private phone or a clean overall made the whole sentence go by any quicker for her. And surely as overalls get worn over time they sometimes have to be replaced – is there a “heads will roll” outcry everytime a prisoner randomly gets a new one? Anyone unbiased would want to concentrate on whether Paris actually spent much more time than normal for such a sentencing (and we already know the answer to that one) or if jail time should really be given for such minor infractions of the law at all? That and prosecuting the hypocritical prosecutor would be far better investigations.

From: Dan R
Time: July 13, 2007, 8:48 pm

Personally, I fail to see how the question as to whether or not she deserves to be in jail can be used as justification for added perks or preferential treatment. Don’t get me wrong: I’m a great fan, and should Our Girl ever choose to spend 23 days in my home, she’d be getting all the preferential treatment known to mankind! But what we’re talking about here is jail, and in jail you always need a very good reason indeed to get special perks or whatever!

That being said, I none the less believe that the examples brought forward in this piece could all be justifiable. For example, I find it pretty obvious why a senior officer would bring her mail to her rather than a fellow prisoner: because a fanletter sent to Paris in jail might be worth relative large sums of money on ebay, and so there was a need to make sure that she received ALL her mail at the proper time.

The only thing which puzzled me was actually the thing about the uniform, but perhaps you’re right; perhaps its policy to always issue new uniforms to high profile prisoners/ special need prisoners. Whatever, its a minor thing.

With regards to the phone; well, I got to admit that it made my bells ring when Barb Walthers published the news of her 2AM conversation with Paris from jail. But though I have no idea as to how these things are done in the US, in my country (Denmark) there have been cases where individual inmates at low or minimum-security facilities have been granted special priviliges with regards to internet-access or use of a special phone. (been there, done that!!). This is only allowed in cases where the prisoner has extensive business interests on the outside, and needs to stay in touch or ‘go south’. And we DO know that Paris has extensive business interests, so that might be one of the reasons. But like I said, I don’t know how these things work in the US – and quite frankly haven’t the desire to find out either 😉

From: Dan R
Time: July 13, 2007, 9:36 pm

ps: That being said, I still find a ‘full-time’ cordless phone in the cell to be a bit excessive for jail. It’s going to be very interesting to see what kind of response the sheriffs-office will come up with! Perhaps the allegations are based on some form of misconception about a phone being available 24/7 for businesscalls only and private calls within a strictly enforced daily interval. After all, the call to Barb Walthers was clearly a businesscall of some importance; since most of us would definately consider a potential million $$ deal to be of grave importance.

But it’ll be interesting to study the reply from sheriff Baca.

From: Christina
Time: July 16, 2007, 7:05 am

I can see why they hand delivered her mail…. how many people out there would steal her mail to sell it off for a few bucks? I’m glad that they protected her privacy like that.