• Lindsay Lohan to serve sentence at home.
    129 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SM64Guy;30066747][h2]THE LOHAN CYCLE[/H2] 1. Lindsay does something jail-worthy. 2. She goes to jail. 3. She gets out of Jail free. 4. Repeat.[/QUOTE] And Paris Hilton. [editline]27th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=analrapist;30065372]Celebrity Justice Unless they straight up murder someone, famous people never have to pay for their crimes.[/QUOTE] Didn't a famous celeb murdered some woman?
Overcrowding is a dumb reason. They would not use that on someone going to that facility on a lesser charge, but instead lock them the fuck up. Fucking US law system, its retarded. I only know of about 3 laws over there that aren't batshit insane. You kids sat here saying its retarded posting from the US, email your local senator (or local equivalent), make them away, get them to voice your opinion. If they don't voice it, vote elsewhere. DEMOCRACY GO.
[QUOTE=Clunj;30075675]I only know of about 3 laws over there that aren't batshit insane.[/QUOTE] I'm afraid it's quite a bit more than 3.
If it was just crowded prisons why did they shorten her sentence? [editline]27th May 2011[/editline] Aswell as house arrest.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30074325]Yeah come on guys, she was a childhood star, you cant blame her for being a crackwhore, thief, drunk driver, and general piece of human trash. And furthermore, we should let her off easy, and dont make her serve her entire sentence, because hey, she was a child star.[/QUOTE] Children don't develop properly when put into an environment in which everyone around them is a self-obsessed freak who's basically immune to the law and does a tonne of drugs. People haven't developed enough maturity at that age to NOT be seriously effected by that kind of environment. You ever wondered why children in religious environments usually tend to end up being religious? Or why kids that are beaten tend to themselves become violent later on in life? Being exposed to stuff changes who we are, we have a tendency to take on the same habits and attributes as those around us and this is ESPECIALLY the case with people prior to adulthood. I'm not saying don't punish her in any way shape or form... or, maybe I am saying that actually. Do SOMETHING to show her her behaviour is inappropriate, do something to try and get her to act more maturely and less irresponsible in future. But... don't judge her as a bad person outright, and don't treat her like some serious criminal who's done all of this of her own accord; I don't think that's fair.
[QUOTE=Kopimi;30070946]oh no im stupid and i think that justifies it[/QUOTE] I think it justifies anything. I'm just not surprised by the outcome and I don't see why anyone cares about lindsay lohan. [editline]27th May 2011[/editline] she's a fucking airhead celebrity
"I have to stay at home! Darnit!" [IMG]http://oregonhousemarket.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/austlynnhomeatstreetofdreams2007.jpg[/IMG]
So, because of overcrowding at the jail, shes now going to serve at her home instead... But maintain the reduced sentence as well? Her house must be fit for less than one person.
[QUOTE=Artyom;30074469]This stupid cunt gets arrested every single fucking day, and she gets off with no time or anything done and gets arrested again. This is literally all bullshit, any fucking judge who pities this constant law breaker needs to have their fucking legs broken and fired. So what, if I became fucking famous I can break the law whenever I want?[/QUOTE] so you support jailing someone for several months because they stole a necklace, even if the jails are terribly overcrowded
[QUOTE=JDK721;30081124]so you support jailing someone for several months because they stole a necklace, even if the jails are terribly overcrowded[/QUOTE] Not really. I'm quite aware of how overpopulated California's prisons are, but reducing her sentence as well as house arrest is just ridiculous. They should kept the original 120 days, and due to prison overcrowding, put it to house arrest. Unfortunately, they only went with the latter.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30081124]so you support jailing someone for several months because they stole a necklace, even if the jails are terribly overcrowded[/QUOTE] Yes, why not? She could at least serve a week or two in jail. Getting both a reduced sentence AND serving all of it at home in her mansion? That isn't punishment. A normal, non-rich or non-famous person would have to spend at least SOME time in jail for all the drunk driving and grand theft that this woman has committed.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30081431]Yes, why not? She could at least serve a week or two in jail. Getting both a reduced sentence AND serving all of it at home in her mansion? That isn't punishment.[/QUOTE] yes, it's still punishment. you do know that incarceration isn't the only form of legal punishment, right? she'll have to remain at her house at all times unless given special permission to leave (doctor appointment, work, etc.), family and friends probably won't be able to visit, she'll be visited randomly by a probation officer, and she'll probably have to take random drug tests in addition to all that, she's going to have do do community service so don't fucking tell me that that's not punishment [editline]27th May 2011[/editline] [QUOTE=Megafanx13;30081361]Not really. I'm quite aware of how overpopulated California's prisons are, but reducing her sentence as well as house arrest is just ridiculous.[/QUOTE] not at all. read the article and you'll see that they are required to reduce nonviolent offenders' sentence. it makes perfect sense. they don't want to clog up the legal system with nonviolent offenders unless absolutely necessary.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30081648]she'll have to remain at her house at all times unless given special permission to leave (doctor appointment, work, etc.), family and friends probably won't be able to visit, she'll be visited randomly by a probation officer, and she'll probably have to take random drug tests in addition to all that, she's going to have do do community service so don't fucking tell me that that's not punishment [/QUOTE] Wrong. Family and friends can visit you when you are on house arrest. Visits with probation officers are scheduled in advance. Doing drug tests for ILLEGAL DRUGS shouldn't be a big deal since they are ILLEGAL. Community service is the easiest shit in the world. Some people do it FOR FUN. [img]http://mynge.com/news/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/lindsay-lohan-bikini-1.jpg[/img] [b]"LOL laws don't apply to me ROTFL!!!"[/b]
[QUOTE=analrapist;30082422]Wrong. Family and friends can visit you when you are on house arrest. Visits with probation officers are scheduled in advance. Doing drug tests for ILLEGAL DRUGS shouldn't be a big deal since they are ILLEGAL. Community service is the easiest shit in the world. Some people do it FOR FUN.[/QUOTE] she has to remain on supervision probation and do 480 hours of community service. yeah, that sure sounds like fun. [QUOTE=analrapist;30082422]Wrong. Family and friends can visit you when you are on house arrest[/QUOTE] [citation needed] [QUOTE=analrapist;30082422]Visits with probation officers are scheduled in advance.[/QUOTE] even if you're on house arrest? [citation needed] [QUOTE=analrapist;30082422]Doing drug tests for ILLEGAL DRUGS shouldn't be a big deal since they are ILLEGAL.[/QUOTE] terrible logic when someone has an addiction issue and is confined to their house. it's easy for someone who isn't dependent on substances to take such a stance. [QUOTE=analrapist;30082422]Community service is the easiest shit in the world. Some people do it FOR FUN.[/QUOTE] 480 hours of work at a place that you possibly have no say in. yeah, that sure sounds like a lot of fun.
[QUOTE=JDK721;30082544] [citation needed][/QUOTE] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_arrest[/url] Christ, do you know how to use the fucking internet?
[QUOTE=analrapist;30082737][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_arrest[/url] Christ, do you know how to use the fucking internet?[/QUOTE] burden of proof is on you if you make the claim show me where it says that family and friends can visit you and that probation visits are schedule in advance
[QUOTE=JDK721;30082901]:derp:[/QUOTE] [img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/images/site_icons/ignore.png[/img] Add to ignore list
[QUOTE=Clunj;30075675]Overcrowding is a dumb reason. They would not use that on someone going to that facility on a lesser charge, but instead lock them the fuck up. Fucking US law system, its retarded. I only know of about 3 laws over there that aren't batshit insane. You kids sat here saying its retarded posting from the US, email your local senator (or local equivalent), make them away, get them to voice your opinion. If they don't voice it, vote elsewhere. DEMOCRACY GO.[/QUOTE] They vote saying the things people want to hear, the problem is that they can do what ever the fuck they want once in office.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30083018][img]http://cdn.fpcontent.net/images/site_icons/ignore.png[/img] Add to ignore list[/QUOTE] Thank you for taking the mature response.
[QUOTE=lockdown6;30083154]average facepunch argument[/QUOTE] [QUOTE=Lambeth;30083268]Thank you for taking the mature response.[/QUOTE] If JDK721 is too dumb to use Google, then I don't feel like I should have to waste my time responding to his asinine questions. If you want to, go right ahead. But I'm done fetching information for someone who's apparently too clueless to look up simple information for himself.
I can seriously understand that there would be some real problems being a celebrity in a public prison
[QUOTE=analrapist;30083333]If JDK721 is too dumb to use Google, then I don't feel like I should have to waste my time responding to his asinine questions. If you want to, go right ahead. But I'm done fetching information for someone who's apparently too clueless to look up simple information for himself.[/QUOTE] learn what the burden of proof is please. if you make a statement then YOU have to back it up with evidence.
[QUOTE=analrapist;30083333]If JDK721 is too dumb to use Google, then I don't feel like I should have to waste my time responding to his asinine questions. If you want to, go right ahead. But I'm done fetching information for someone who's apparently too clueless to look up simple information for himself.[/QUOTE] Oh for fuck's sake. NO, you made an argument, you need to show proof. Don't use that retarded, "You're on the internet, you can do it yourself" because that's bullshit. Its bad debate practice and if you did that with a paper, you'd fail. So why is it different here on a forum where YOU'RE supposed to make intelligent arguments?
it's like making a resume and putting "available upon request" as your references.
welcome to america
[QUOTE=Swilly;30083472]Oh for fuck's sake. NO, you made an argument, you need to show proof. Don't use that retarded, "You're on the internet, you can do it yourself" because that's bullshit. Its bad debate practice and if you did that with a paper, you'd fail. So why is it different here on a forum where YOU'RE supposed to make intelligent arguments?[/QUOTE] 1.) This is not a research paper. 2.) Thanks to net neutrality we all have access to the same internet. 3.) It's very easy to find out that visitation rights during house arrest are dependent upon the specifics set forth in the court order, and that unless a judge has specifically forbade it you are allowed to have visitors at home. 4.) Beyond that, it's easy to learn that most house arrests do not require you to be in your home 24/7 and that people who are under "house arrest" are usually allowed to leave during normal working hours to go to their job, etc. JDK is being a jackass and purposefully changing my words in quotes in other threads. I don't have time to pander to idiots who are going to lie about what I said and whose responses are always just "LOL PROOF IT HURR" And when you do give him a source, this is how he responds: [QUOTE=JDK721;30085128]that source doesn't sound biased at all[/QUOTE] He doesn't ask for a source so he can check the information, he asks for a source so he can attack the source. This shit is textbook ad hominem attacks. [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem[/url]
[QUOTE=analrapist;30082737][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_arrest[/url] Christ, do you know how to use the fucking internet?[/QUOTE] uh you do realise that wikipedia isn't a citation right
Boo people don't have to go to prison.... thats... bad? I don't even like Lindsay Lohan, but people should really see less people going to prison as a good thing. I'd be lobbying for ordinary people to get similar treatment under the law, but that she be put in prison for the same amount of time.
Fair enough. But the point is just that it is bullshit that rich people and celebrities don't have to deal with the same kinds of legal punishment that non-celebrities have. Justice is supposed to be blind, but in America it is weighted very heavily against the poor.
[QUOTE='[CWG]RustySpannerz;30066452']This isn't a problem like not enough money is, why can't they just build more prisons?[/QUOTE] California is absolutely bogged down with debts right now. They literally have no money, and even had to ask the government for a loan a few years ago (at least I'm fairly certain.)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.