What do Paris Hilton and evil female cops have in common?

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!


The answer is: both go to the "Special Needs Unit" in the Lynwood Jail.


See for yourself:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/0....ap/index.html

Originally Posted by CNN

She will be held in a "special needs housing unit" at the Century Regional Detention Center in suburban Lynwood, Whitmore said.

Hilton will stay in a unit that contains 12 two-person cells reserved for police officers, public officials, celebrities and other high-profile inmates, he said.

Emphasis by me.

I do not live under a rock, so it is not easy to miss her doings. However, what made this story stand out to me was not the length or harshness of the punishment. 30 days is standard sentence for DUI in Sweden. Considering that she is a 1st-time convict, so young so that the law suggests some leniency (at least over here), and that no one was hurt by her crime her sentence of 23 days seems perfectly within reason to me.

Instead, what got my attention - and stoked my anger - was the statement that cops get special treatment to their favor. Any common criminal gets to share a cell with some other, presumably disagreeable, criminal. That is to be expected, and part of the deterrent effect of punishment.

However, convicted police officers appearently get it easier. They get to share cells either some other police officer, public official or celebrity. All of the more disagreeable types of potential cell mates are taken away - mentally deranged, violent, etc. The worst possible case for a convicted police officer is therefore much better than the worst possible case for an ordinary criminal.

This is in stark contrast to the fact that crimes committed by police officers are inherently more heinous than a comparable crime done by a private person. The former are given, among many other priviledges not granted to the general public, the right to use violence under special circumstances, and are supposed to use that right only when absolutely needed. They have legal rights and priviledges not granted to the rest of us, therefore more should be expected of them.

But the California legal system gives convicted police officers special treatment, and keeps them away from the great majority of the prison population.

What do I think should be done instead? Several things:
1. Police convicted of any infraction/misdemeanor/crime should always be fired from their employment. The sole exception: if the nonlegal act fulfills 3 criteria at once: it is their first nonlegal act, it did not cause any harm to any natural or legal person, and that the situation when the nonlegal act was performed was such that no reasonable person could have predicted that any actual harm would ensue.

2. For all nonlegal acts performed by a police officer while acting in his capacity as such, then minimum and maximum possible sentences should be double that of what they are specified to be for a common person.

3. For all nonlegal acts performed by a police officer while acting in his capacity as such which result in harm to a natural person, the assignment of cellmates to the convicted police officer should depend on whether that convicted police officer will testify against another police officer in another case of a police officer accused of a crime while in uniform.

If the convicted police officer produced testimonial or evidence which leads to a conviction of another police officer, the first police officer can choose his cellmates. Those must be chosen among convicts who are not convicted police officers, and have expressed interest in being cellmates with a convicted police officer who has turned one of his colleagues in. The convicted police officer is in this case permitted to study all relevant information known to the legal system of his prospective cellmates, in order to find an agreeable cellmate. The convicted police officer who uses this method to be able to choose his own cellmates is permitted to turn in any other police officer, it does not have to be in conjunction with a case that the legal system is already investigating. A police officer which has been convicted based upon the testimonial or evidence of another police officer can also use this method in his turn to make himself being eligble for choosing a cellmate.

If, OTOH, the convicted police officer can not, or will not, provide any testimonial/evidence against a colleague, the right to choose cellmates for him goes to the person who has suffered harm as a result of of the police officer´s crime. The harm sufferer gets to choose freely among convicts who have expressed interest in being cellmates with a convicted police officer. The harm sufferer is permitted to study all information known to the legal system of the prospective cellmates, and he is also allowed to interview them if he so wishes, in order to find an cellmate who is appropriately disagreeable to the convicted police officer. The convicted police officer, or his legal team, is not permitted to have any say in the matter, nor are they permitted to know beforehand who the cellmates will be. In this case, the convicted police officer must be put in a cell with at least two cellmates, both chosen by his victim.

4. For all jail term convictions due to nonlegal acts performed by a police officer while acting in his capacity as such which result in physical harm to a natural person, the first one month or 10% of the jail term - whichever is the greatest - should be in 24-hour solitary confinement. During this time, the convicted police officer should not have the right to see, talk to,write to, or in any way communicate, with any other person, be it relatives, friends, legal counsel, spiritual counsel, other jail inmates in that prison, prison employees. They should be put in an empty cell where food comes in through a conveyor-like system in order to ensure total lonelieness.

5. For the remaining part of the prison term of those described in #4, the convicted police officer should not have the right to communicate in any way with anyone else than his legal counsel, prison employees, or cellmates.

6. The 8th amendment should be reworded so that it explicitly not covers police officers who perform nonlegal acts while acting as such, in order to remove constitutional roadblocks to #1-5.

As you might gather, I have personally seen a policeman beating up a young woman who was drunk to the point of uncounciousness. In order to really show what a charming person he was, he used her naked breast as a handle when he threw her into the cop car, banging her head into the car roof in the process. Luleå´s finest at work.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[introspective]

Hi Peter in Sveden. We have been following the story in America and it is just appalling. I really cant' believe the American Justice system. It galls me to see a young girl thrown into a jail with violent common everyday criminals who rob homes, steal from stores, hold up banks, use deadly force, draw blood for heavens sake, beat each other up for fun and etc. While, at the same time they send career criminals home with ankle bracelets on.

We have to come up with a few new systems. A few thoughts would be to build competely different facilities for men and women who commit harmless, stupid infractions but stop short of actually physical bodily harm.

[Inquartata]

Meh, I didn't see you leaping to the defense of Martha Stewart.

"But the California legal system gives convicted police officers special treatment, and keeps them away from the great majority of the prison population."

The same is true for pedophiles and known informers, Peter. It's just a way to try to keep a prison sentence from turning into guaranteed capital punishment. These special categories do not merely run the risk of being killed in general population, they are almost certain of it.

[Teme]

While it could debated if it's fair or not (provided that certain people like ex-cops are bound to get more ass-kicking that others), I believe it's the officials (and guards especially) that like to keep things running smoothly and avoid unnecessary turmoil by separating those persons whose mere presence (among 'regular' prison population) can be an invitation to cause trouble.

[edit]Twenty years ago half of the isolated prisoners in Finland were isolated due to their own request (for safety). I'll bet the situation is the same in Sweden, too.
(Albeit we don't have 'celeb' wings in our prisons...)

[Inquartata]

Meh, do you even have celebs?

[jeff]

Not since Linus Torvalds left the country...

(I concur with Inq that the standard reason for separate "accomodations" for incarcerated celebrities and police officers is to prevent abuse from the general prison population who may be looking for notoriety in the former case or settling scores from outside in the latter)

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh, I didn't see you leaping to the defense of Martha Stewart.

For the simple reason that I did not think that she needed or deserved it. She is in the "celebrity" group, just as PH. Her crimes were nonviolent, and more importantly not performed while in an official capacity which gave her special powers/rights/priviledges.

Originally Posted by Inquartata

"But the California legal system gives convicted police officers special treatment, and keeps them away from the great majority of the prison population."

The same is true for pedophiles and known informers, Peter. It's just a way to try to keep a prison sentence from turning into guaranteed capital punishment. These special categories do not merely run the risk of being killed in general population, they are almost certain of it.

Not that I googled it, but I seem to remember that you did not in principle have a problem with capital punishment.

I do not agree with capital punishment. I know perfectly well that the cellmates thusly chosen will instil great fear in the ex-cop, which is precisely the point. They will make his life awful by yelling at him, playing awful music on the radio, keeping him awake at night, etc. which I find only just. In order to stop them from killing him, one must have the cell equipped with stun grenades and a 24-hour video watch. In all likelyhood, he will get a little whack now and then before the prison guard activates the stun grenade. Videotapes of that will be concentrate the minds of Police Academy students just after they have read about Abner Louima.

Anyway, if you reread my threadstart you will notice that I provided a safety valve for such a cop. Simple: hand in a wayward colleague. This is designed to work as a chain reaction in order to flush out old misdeeds, and it is common in the USA legal systems to have mechanisms in which criminals get more lenient punishment if they provide testimonial/evidence. Why should this be any different?

Don´t want to break colleague bonds? Sure, but expect no empathy from me. Apart from traitors in wartime, I consider violent cops the vilest scum on earth, and they should be treated accordingly.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson

[latenight]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

...Anyway, if you reread my threadstart you will notice that I provided a safety valve for such a cop. Simple: hand in a wayward colleague. ....Peter Gustafsson

And if I was said bad cop, and didn't KNOW a wayward colleague, you can damn sure believe I would come up with one anyways.

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

{snip}
I do not agree with capital punishment. I know perfectly well that the cellmates thusly chosen will instil great fear in the ex-cop, which is precisely the point. They will make his life awful by yelling at him, playing awful music on the radio, keeping him awake at night, etc. which I find only just. In order to stop them from killing him, one must have the cell equipped with stun grenades and a 24-hour video watch. In all likelyhood, he will get a little whack now and then before the prison guard activates the stun grenade. Videotapes of that will be concentrate the minds of Police Academy students just after they have read about Abner Louima.
{snip}

What you're advocating for is, quite simply, part of the reason such accomadations exist.

Assault by other inmates isn't a part of any sentence, nor should it be, IMHO.

Most sentencing systems have a mechanism in place to more severely punish those (like Police Officers) whose crime occurred using their official, state-granted powers. The severity, though, is only in time--not in living conditions.

The existence of inmate-on-imate violence is a bug in the system, not a feature.

--Philistine

[jeff]

Yes - illegal inmate violence is not the way to implement justice regardless of the crime.

I could be convinced otherwise in the case of Jeffrey Dahmer, though!

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

For the simple reason that I did not think that she needed or deserved it. She is in the "celebrity" group, just as PH. Her crimes were nonviolent, and more importantly not performed while in an official capacity which gave her special powers/rights/priviledges.

My point was that Mang--er, Introspective was incensed by the "harshness" of Hilton's punishment, but not of Stewart's. Rich blonde celebrities of a feather.

Not that I googled it, but I seem to remember that you did not in principle have a problem with capital punishment.

I'm not, when the crime warrants it and it is inflicted by due process. Being shanked in the yard by the Mexican Mafia is another matter.

know perfectly well that the cellmates thusly chosen will instil great fear in the ex-cop, which is precisely the point. They will make his life awful by yelling at him, playing awful music on the radio, keeping him awake at night, etc. which I find only just.

Meh, Swedish prisons must be very different from American ones.

In order to stop them from killing him, one must have the cell equipped with stun grenades and a 24-hour video watch.

But first, we must build Panopticon!

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

Meh, I didn't see you leaping to the defense of Martha Stewart.

"But the California legal system gives convicted police officers special treatment, and keeps them away from the great majority of the prison population."

The same is true for pedophiles and known informers, Peter. It's just a way to try to keep a prison sentence from turning into guaranteed capital punishment. These special categories do not merely run the risk of being killed in general population, they are almost certain of it.

Bingo. And it's not just a regular execution either ("just" a regular execution...) cops in jail are going to be subjected to about as close to hell on earth as it is possible to get.

[dcmdale]

While I absolutely agree with the need to segregate certain prisoners to prevent a thirty-day sentence from becoming a death sentence, I think that Peter at least captures a suspicion that a lot of people have about the differences in experience between these special areas and the general areas. Prison is prison, but some prisons may be more prisons than other prisons.

During my legal career, I tried real hard to avoid criminal work, so I don't have any special insight into the system there, but clearly there is a perception, and the few ex-cons that I have talked to who have been in both "country club" prisons and regular prisons would say that there is a major difference. I also note that friends that have been in "special areas" because they were considered a danger to the rest of the prison population didn't feel privileged by the experience.

I am not on board with Peter's suggestion, but how do we eliminate both the reality and perception of special treatment for people in special areas?

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by dcmdale

{snip}I am not on board with Peter's suggestion, but how do we eliminate both the reality and perception of special treatment for people in special areas?

From this article on the jail and the special area--it doesn't seem particularly posh. Other than perhaps a more private cell (1 or 2 people), it's fairly standard. The "at least one hour" outside the cell actually seems worse than most jail conditions--assuming it's really close to just one hour.

FWIU, most complaints in protective custody are to the inability to spend time outside of one's cell.

Even "country club" prisons aren't a whole lot of fun...

--Philistine

[introspective]

Outside the 'gates' they interviewed this awful little obese woman who as a hired representative of the state of California - stated that "no-one is treated differently".

My beef with the entire system is that no-one has the right intellegence to do the job. Believe it or not, the system allows for it to hire individuals with a High School or GED education - hardly enough to do a good job.

Revision of the Prison System should call for completely overhauled job descriptions and credentialling.

Right now what they do is hire a bunch of beefy people and 'train' them themselves. I'll bet dollars to donuts that if they upped the anty on descriptions and credentials you'd have a revised prison system.

I really don't think that Paris belongs in Jail. And she has a lot of support. For example today I saw a 90 year old woman driving a hot sports car very very slowly to show her support, and she can barely see over the steering wheel, but everyone is watching out for her

[dcmdale]

Originally Posted by Philistine

Even "country club" prisons aren't a whole lot of fun...

No doubt, but they certainly can be "less bad." And, of course, jurisdictions vary.

The only person that I spent enough time talking to who had actually been in a true "country club" was a mob lawyer who got caught trying to monetize a fee that he had taken in kind. Then the ATF found the kind of firepower in his office that they frown upon, but might be completely understandable for someone in that profession.

Anyways, he did 18 months in a hard core federal pen before being moved. The "country club" had a shared bunkhouse type arrangement, 8 to a room. No bars. No fences. His roomies were mostly politicians: a couple of state AG's, an ex-governor, a couple of CEO-types on SEC violations. The assumption was that you would stick to the prison grounds because the alternative was bad. There was a curfew, but no lockdown. The library was good. They had a rec room that they could use just about anytime. A bunch of successful middle aged men marking time.

Obviously, one wouldn't choose to go into that environment, but if one were in prison, there could be worse.

[PeterGustafsson]

Hi!

Originally Posted by latenight

And if I was said bad cop, and didn't KNOW a wayward colleague, you can damn sure believe I would come up with one anyways.

In which case you would get extra time for false accusation. It is not easy to prove something that has not happened.

Under the system suggested by me, not only would cops in general refrain from on-the-job-crime, they would also keep tabs on each other. The colleague-to colleague trust would be diminished. All very good things, IMO.


Have a nice time!

Peter Gustafsson