31. Good! They should have done the same thing with Paris Hilton as well instead of forcing her to go back to jail. People say Paris got better treatment but actually her celebrity caused her to get worse treatment which isn't right or fair. Since they do release normal, everyday people all the time after doing 10% of their time then they should do that the same with celebs as well. Just b/c someone's a celeb doesn't mean they should be treated worse or something than the average Joe.

Posted at 12:36PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Ashlee

32. So..........The moral of the story is if people keep being bad & keep the jails full all the bad people can get off with a slap on the wrist....
What a wonderful society....................................

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004112930_checkpoints08m.html
Gov. Christine Gregoire wants the state Legislature to authorize police to set up sobriety spot checks, a practice unseen in Washington since the state Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional in 1988.

How about working on your own first....the cops, the judges etc who are drinking & driving & skating as shown in this article?????????
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/specials/undueinfluence/326444_duidiaz06.html

Posted at 12:42PM on Jan 10th 2008 by PeopleinPOWERSkate

33. Sounds to me like someone's palm got greased. We all know that celebs get special treatment.

Posted at 12:46PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Tired of the BS

34. 1. she probably blew him
2. why in the name of whichever god you believe in is kiefer still in jail, especially when girlfight here had a 4x longer sentence????????????????????????????????

Posted at 1:04PM on Jan 10th 2008 by bullplop

35. It's just this Sheriff @ the Lynwood jail that keeps letting celebs out - Kiefer is at another jail. I guess Lynwood is the only jail in CA that's overcrowded & celebs take up the most room so they get released (in this Sheriff's mind) - not ordinary people.

Posted at 1:06PM on Jan 10th 2008 by laughin all the way

36. Man... if I ever get charged with a crime, I want to do my time in California! I can guarantee you right now that here in Canada, nobody gets out after serving only ten percent of the sentence. I know several people who have gone to jail, and nobody got out THAT fast. And nobody SHOULD. You do the crime, you do the time!

California, if overcrowding is such a problem that you can't hold your female prisoners for more than a few lousy days, the obvious thing to do is BUILD ANOTHER FRICKIN' JAIL! I think you're only looking for excuses to keep handing out these "Get Out of Jail Free" cards to the ladies, because you certainly don't seem to have the same problem housing the men!

Posted at 1:18PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Anonymous

37. Stop looking at the Celebrity angle people because this is actually about so much more. The Sheriff's Department HAS MORE POWER THEN THE JUDGE. And this is not the only example and not the only county with this problem.

For instance, my father died this year in Riverside County California. Less then 12 hours after my father was released from Loma Linda University Hospital after having surgery, my father was rushed to Moreno Valley Community Hospital where he DIED LESS THEN 24 HOURS OF ARRIVAL (not admittance). The attending Doctor could not state the cause of death and was not willing to sign the death certificate. My fathers’ case should have been an automatic Sheriff's Coroner Case as per GC 27491 and the health and Safety Code Section 102850 which mandates the Sheriff-Coroner to inquire and investigate any human death which falls within the following categories.
1. Physician unable to state the cause of death
2. Wherein deceased has not been attended by a physician in the 20 days prior to death.
a. No one in “attendance” 20 days prior to his death was willing to sign the death certificate.
3. A death with known or suspected contribution by a therapeutic procedure
4. A death occurring in less than 24 hours in a hospital.
5. All deaths in which the patient is comatose throughout the period of physician attendance, whether at home or hospital.
5 out of 27 reasons listed in the General Code and Health and Safety Code that mandate that the death be investigated. But they didn't was to run the call or there was no money in the budget to pay for the autopsy (who knows) so they "shopped" for a doctor to sign my fathers death certificate that had not seen him in over some 40 days. And because they have ALL THE POWER, they declined to do the autopsy.

But I wasn't going to have that. So, I paid the Riverside County Sheriff's Corner to perform an autopsy on my father. But the report that I got didn't match him. From his height (according to the Sheriff's Coroner, my father shrank over 3 inches in death). The Sheriff's Coroner Claims that my father "gained" 28 pounds in death. My father weighed 156 pounds 1 hr before his death. Body parts that had been removed via surgery have suddenly grown back. Medical conditions that he had been treated for years suddenly disappeared. My father died with a severe infection, (White blood cell count of 47.3) he was septic. Yet the Sheriff's Coroner's office founds no infection. The reason..... I found out that the Sheriff's Coroner's office did not review the medical records (nor did they even request them) from the hospital that my father actually died in. The Sheriff's Coroner picked my father up from this hospital, yet they didn't request the medical records. But, they did request the medical records from the hospital where he had his surgery. They wrote an autopsy (in my opinion) based upon a set of medical records from the wrong hospital and NOT BASED UPON A THOROUGH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL EXAMINATION.

I lodged a complaint against the Sheriff's Coroner for "Failure" to act by NOT PROVIDING AN ACCURATE CERTIFIED EXAMINATION" in where I provided the Sheriff's Coroner's investigator with Medical Proof from Multiple Specialist from multiple hospitals (all of which actually treated him) to prove that the report was NOT ACCURATE and Sheriff's Office AGREED WITH ME! The Riverside County Sheriff's office stated that the Error's were found to be present. But, they said that the errors were justified. HOW COULD THEY BE JUSTIFIED? I PROVED TO THEM THAT THE CAUSE OF DEATH WAS CRAP.

So, where am I now? Currently I am left with a "death certificate" that is OUT RIGHT WRONG. And I am left with the Sheriff's department believing that they have all the power. "Currently they do". I am pursuing this issue with the Riverside County District Attorneys Office who has already told me that he can’t do much. My meeting with them is set for the 21st of this month. If I do not get action from them, I will move up to the next person above them.

This isn’t about a lawsuit. This is about JUSTICE. My father deserves justice and I deserve to know how he died.

So, my question to all of you is.... WHO IS ABOVE THE SHERIFF?

Posted at 1:26PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Teresa Cramer

38. And for you people complaining about how "badly" Paris was treated, please. No offence, but Paris was treated like a little princess in that jail. She got to keep her hair extensions and was even allowed to have her cellular phone in the cell with her. Nobody else is allowed to do either of those things. Meanwhile, she was also protected from the rest of the riff-raff in the jail. Who knows what other privileges she had in there. Paris was the precious little darling of the place and was treated as such.

Mind you, she was railroaded compared to what Lindsay and Nicole got, but lots of other people are railroaded compared to Paris.

Posted at 1:32PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Anonymous

39. Paris should sue... put whatever spin you like on it she was treated different than other prisoners when it comes to how long she had to remain in jail. She had served 10 percent and then was sent back to jail to continue her sentence. She was never offered release for having served 10 percent as were all other inmates. She was discriminated against and all the spin about how she was treated or what she was there for is crap. All the Kiefer stuff is also crap, he chose to spend his time in a private jail and knew up front that the early release did not apply to private jails.

Posted at 1:39PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Stump

40. I have to disagree with you there, Stump. The "spin" about how Paris was treated is not "crap" at all. If Paris Hilton should be able to sue for being treated differently and being kept longer than for ten percent of her sentence, then everyone else at Lynwood should also be able to sue for being treated differently. After all, they were forced to give up their hair extensions and were forced to use the PAYPHONE (and then only at certain times). Don't you think everyone would like to be able to call their psychiatrist and family whenever they wanted just like Paris was able to?

And what about everyone else in California who has had to serve more than ten percent of their time? Why should anyone be so ENTITLED to get out of jail after serving only ten percent of their sentence just because they happen to be at Lynwood? I mean, what do they tell people in the other jails, "You served ten percent of your time and now you want to leave? Oh, sorry, they only do that at Lynwood, and this is (insert name of jail here), so you have to stay longer"?

What's sauce for the gander should be sauce for the goose. According to your logic, I guess everyone should sue! Nobody is ever going to be treated "the same." Nobody ever was and nobody ever will be. That's just how life is. Sometimes you get treated a little worse than the next guy, sometimes you get treated a little better. For the first time in her pampered life, Paris got treated a little worse (but also better in some ways). Sorry, but I'm not going to think that she got treated so badly just because she actually had to serve the time the judge gave her (heaven forbid)! Paris did the crime, she barely did half the time and was treated like royalty in the meantime. No sympathy there!

Posted at 2:11PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Anonymous

41. Gee, another celebrity getting off the hook. What a suprise!

Posted at 2:13PM on Jan 10th 2008 by sarahhp

42. Ok Rod Much...if you do not care then why take the time to post a comment...helllooo - common sense stepped outta here 5 minutes ago with that.

But for Michelle she did break the law, she got sentenced but while I do not think it is right she gets out after a 10% time served I do think that if they are going to let skanks like Paris and Nicole out then they need to do it for everyone. None of these celebs are special - they are people too...

Posted at 2:20PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Rhi

43. OVERALL ...I THINK THE SHERIFF TREATED PARIS HILTON

LIKE A QUEEN COMPARE TO MICHELLE RODRIGUEZ .

BECAUSE PARIS HILTON IS "MORE" POPULAR THAN MICHELLE .

IT DEPENDS ON THE PERSON AND WHO'S

"MORE POPULAR THAN THAT OTHER ......

WHICH IS CALLED FAVORITISM .............

Posted at 4:45PM on Jan 10th 2008 by SHERIFF PLAYED FAVORITISM WITH PARIS THAN THE OTHER CELEBS

44. That lesbian bitch better not get out early.

Posted at 5:10PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Debbi

45. The judge could have given her 10 years, with time off for good behavior she would have a sentence of 1825 days and she would be released after 182 days.

Or California could realize that courts that have so overloaded the jail might need to be looked at. Why do they put non violent offenders in jail? Fines, loss of drivers license and community service could be far more effective.

Look at it this way: a second DUI in a short period of time gets you 80 minutes but driving sober but without your license gets you 23 days.

Posted at 6:15PM on Jan 10th 2008 by Joe