ON SELF-EVIDENT TRUTHS: We've done what I consider to be a decent job avoiding the whole Lindsay Lohan meltdown, despite my own keen emotional investment in the case -- something I won't tell you about now, so that you can read about it later in the chapter of my memoir entitled "Get Off My Lawn, You Damn Kids." I find it impossible to avoid today, though, as Lohan, in her only official comment on her 90 (but probably 23)-day jail/90-day inpatient rehab sentence for violation of the terms of her probation, had
this to tweet:
It is clearly stated in Article 5 of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights that "No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." This was taken from an article by Erik Luna.. "November 1 marked the 15th anniversary of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines. But there were no celebrations, parades, or other festivities in honor of this punishment scheme created by Congress and the U.S. Sentencing Commission.... Instead, the day passed like most others during the last 15 years: Scores of federal defendants sentenced under a constitutionally perverted system that saps moral judgment through its mechanical rules."
May I respond?
- Lohan was in state court, and the Sentencing Guidelines are federal.
- Lohan was not harmed by any mandatory minimum imposed by any law or guideline, since the law permitted the judge to impose no additional sentence (beyond that already served) but decided on her own to impose more than the minimum.
- Actually, Lohan did originally receive a statutory minimum sentence of 96 hours of jail time, 48 of which was erased by election into two weeks of community service, and the remaining 48 hours of which was served by a "look-and-leave" -- surrendering to jail shortly before midnight and leaving shortly after midnight, which gives the prisoner credit for two calendar days. That would have been it if she had been willing to comply with the terms of her probation.
- It is impossible to argue cogently that the judge followed "mechanical rules" in this case or failed to exercise "moral judgment," whether or not you agreed with that judgment.
- So 90.05 (or probably 23.05) days of special-circumstances confinement and 90 days of rehab constitutes "cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment" for a person who crashed a car, lied about it, carjacked another car, tried to use it as a weapon, and falsely accused two other people of driving it, all while either drinking or doing coke? Take it away, other Isaac:
No rich young white guy has ever gotten anywhere with me comparing himself to Rosa Parks.
Also, I think the mandatory guidelines were struck down in 2005.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, I'm impressed that she cited her sources.
ReplyDeleteI don't do criminal law, so I'm not sure about this, but haven't they survived as (theoretically) nonmandatory guidelines?
ReplyDeleteYes. But with the mandatory nature gone, I think it can't really be considered 15 years old.
ReplyDeleteOh, and perhaps someone should tell her that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is pretty much just aspirational.
ReplyDeleteThat can't be right -- it uses "shall" rather than "should," and doesn't say "please."
ReplyDeleteWhat's the enforcement mechanism?
ReplyDeleteI don't care about Lindsey but anytime you can make a Sports Night reference, I say go for it.
ReplyDeleteCoast Guard?
ReplyDeleteAnd that Sports Night reference always makes me think of this terrific piece by Sarah Vowell, originally written in 2001 and included in her great book The Partly Cloudy Patriot under the title "Rosa Parks, C'est Moi."
ReplyDeleteYour honor, if I may quote Jason Segal's character on HIMYM, "lawyered."
ReplyDeleteHer behavior seems to broach a new level of terrible as is her response to the consequences of her actions, but having spent much of the last two years getting a close up (and involuntary) look at the devastation of the disease of alcohol and drug abuse and addiction, all I can see is her addict self doing absolutely anything it can to stay free and stay close to the highs it needs. I really hope a 90 day treatment program helps her out, but it is so up to her. A really great book on the subject is 'Broken' by William Cope Moyers (son of Bill Moyers). He speaks on the subject now on behalf of Hazelden, and is a powerful and compelling speaker.
ReplyDeletePardon my ignorance, but why is she looking at 23 days instead of 90?
ReplyDeleteAlso, isn't she on the path to a Drew Barrymore-type resurgance? Or is she too far gone at this point?
Hard to--Drew had to go through the "erotic thriller" years first, and "I Know Who Killed Me" is barely a start on that. Lohan really does have talent, though (she was excellent in Mean Girls and Freaky Friday in particular), so I hope she's able to put it back together.
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, the 23 days is because of jail overcrowding. Like Paris Hilton, she'll be out sooner than she should.
ReplyDeleteWill the court choose her rehab facility or will Lindsay and her people select it? Also, did you see the list of approved drugs she's on? Yowza. That cocktail would mess with anyone. She's like, one injection away from pulling a Michael Jackson.
ReplyDeleteI do feel bad for her. It seems like every parent, no matter how hard they try to get it right, can screw their kid up in some way. But Lindsay's? She really didn't have a chance with clowns like that raising her. Poor kid. I hope this serves as a wake-up call and that she will get her life together. Rotten parents are only an excuse for so long.
I apologize to Hannah Lee: in an effort to delete an inadvertant repost of her comment, I deleted the original as well.
ReplyDeleteAnd in The Parent Trap - she went way beyond the usual Hollywood cute kid actor.
ReplyDeleteI really hope she can do it at some point.
Due to overcrowding in L.A. county jail, the average female inmate serves 25% of her sentence.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I don't practice in California, but California has some mandatory sentencing enhancements for drug offenses. (The scheme is a maze of nested if/then statements, but basically adds years to a sentence for a current offense based on prior convictions). I don't know if there's anything that applies to Lohan's situation, but wouldn't the logic from Luna's argument still be applicable? Not that I would defend Lohan's complaint, at all. I think she'll get to serve her time in the celebrity section of the jail anyway.
I used to work with Erik Luna, who I'm sure is tickled pink that he was name-checked in a Lindsay Lohan tweet.
ReplyDeleteShe was sentenced to the mandatory minimum for her crimes, basically two DUIs and vehicular assault -- a minimum of 96 hours in jail (which I believe is the minimum for the two DUIs, allowed to be served concurrently rather than consecutively), 48 of which were traded for community service and 48 of which were constructively served over the course of an hour or so spanning the break between two calendar days. So to the extent that there is a minimum for her crimes, it is an hour or so in jail and some community service. That is not what she is complaining about. She is complaining about being sent to jail for consecutive 30-day sentences for the three crimes and for probation violations. That represents the application of moral judgment, not mechanical guideline-reading, because the judge didn't have to sentence her to anything at all. My guess is that if there were no sentencing guidelines, rules, suggestions, or precedent at all, she would have gotten exactly the same treatment -- a light initial sentence conditioned upon compliance with some probation restrictions and completion of a drug and alcohol treatment program, and a comparatively harsh, but still modest, sentence for refusal to comply with the terms of probation. So I don't think that any part of anything Lohan tweeted has any applicability at all to her situation.
ReplyDeleteI also gather that you're talking about possession offenses. She wasn't convicted of possession, because when the deputy found a folded card with a white powdery substance in it, he "thought it was a crushed breath mint" and threw it in the garbage. He later fished it out, and when it was tested, it was cocaine. I don't want to be a conspiracist here, but one would have to be an extraordinarily stupid policeman to believe that a mainstay of Young Hollywood was carrying a crushed breath mint around in her back pocket, and a moderately intelligent policeman might anticipate that the best way to get a girl out of a possession jam would be to spoil the evidence by throwing it in the trash.
conspiracist? conspiracy theorist is what I meant.
ReplyDeleteI object! A closer examination of the twitter stream, as seen here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theslackdaily.com/2010/07/whereupon-i-come-to-the-defense-of-lindsay-lohan.html
indicates that this was not, in fact, a reference to Lindsay's own issues, but to the Iranian woman condemned to death by stoning.
I call bullshit. What possible relevance could the US sentencing guidelines and mechanical justice and the lack of moral judgment have to do with the Iranian case? One cannot credibly argue that Lohan was talking about the Iranian case when she tweeted about the unfairness of sentencing guidelines.
ReplyDelete