PARIS HILTON IN-OUT

Hooray for Paris! Why shouldn't Paris Hilton be able to spend her jail time at home? Oh, sure, she's a privileged, spoiled rich kid, lucky her. What young chick wouldn't trade places with her, even with the ankle bracelet and domestic incarceration. Silver-spoon slammer time. Maybe the restriction could be confined to one room, if the technology is that pinpointedly accurate, and the room barely fitted with minimal facilities, so it isn't a vacation, and it's subject to summary inspection at any time. In her dreams...

But think about it from a more practical, economic viewpoint: Now that we have this new surveillance capability where the "prisoner's" whereabouts can be pinpointed 24/7, why then do non-violent criminals have to be put in local or state prisons at all? Prison is for punishment, yeah sure, but mainly to protect society from those who must be caged, lest they wreak havoc on the outside. Now granted Paris could wreak havoc behind the wheel on the outside, but if she can't leave her room, she can't drive. Or is our form of imprisonment a relic from some calvinistic sense of revenge? Certainly not because NV's are a threat to us on the outside.

Paris Hilton's "crime" was basically a traffic violation (of DUI probation), and no doubt she shouldn't be allowed to play her game in traffic (Why would a star of this magnitude and wealth be driving anyway? There are cabs and limos for the likes of her), and anyone with that conviction needs punishment and a stiff fine, but to provide a state maintained jail cell with meals, guards, supervised free time, and all the expense of keeping her penned up, when she could be severely fined and punished by restricting her to a room in her own house, would seem more prudent from the taxpayers' point of view.

Fine her? She has millions! Good. Let the fine be in proportion to her income, which is right there at the IRS for law enforcement to check. If, say, she has an annual net income of two million dollars (not unthinkable), and her sentence is 45 days, then the fine, in addition to restriction by ankle-bracelet for that period, should equal her income for that time, or 45/365ths of $2,000,000 = $246,575 out of Paris' net income. A good, hard-cash wake-up call. So then, instead of the state spending (at an estimated $35,000 annual cost) $4,603 to incarcerate her, they come out $246,575 + $4,603 (that would have been spent) to the good, a net increase of $251,178. Wake up taxpayers! Here's a solution. This wouldn't make Paris Hilton, or her family, or her agent, or her entourage, or anyone who makes money off the PH notoriety, happy, but it would surely teach the lesson. If it doesn't, next time double the sentence, thus the fine.

Why not do this with any non-violent offender? Domestic incarceration with ankle-bracelet, plus a fine of net income for the days spent in restriction. Payable in cash before the restriction is lifted. After all, why should someone caught in any minor offense become a responsibility of the state at an estimated $35 thousand a year? If judges had the leeway in sentencing in this regard, our "prison" systems and their expense would shrink drastically, and punishment would be a lot more effective.

Henry Francisco, Special to

The Port Whitman Times