Reader opinion: How Lindsay Lohan would fare in court if you were in charge
Lindsay Lohan's latest brush with the law has brought up a valid concern: Is the troubled actress really being treated like everyone else by the judicial system?
Common sense suggests that Lohan is being treated generously. Despite infraction after infraction and threat after threat, in her visit to jail last summer she served a mere 13 days of a 90-day sentence.
But common sense doesn't always tell the whole story. The reality is that in L.A. County's overcrowded jail system, nonviolent offenders often have their sentences drastically reduced. And it's hard to tell what's the "usual" punishment for repeat infractions like Lohan's because judges and prosecutors have so much leeway that there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
Two things would help. First, we'd like assurances, and evidence if possible, that officials involved in the Lohan case are doing everything they can to treat her the same way they'd treat anyone else in the system — neither more harshly nor more leniently. And second, we'd like to feel confident that if people misbehave time and again, eventually they will be punished for it.
Now, here's what readers would like.
She doesn't deserve any more chances…
I suppose the misadventures of Lindsay Lohan will continue to seem droll and harmless right up to the point where she drives drunk and slams her car into the side of a minivan, killing everybody inside.
I don't give a signed copy of "It Takes a Village" about her personal life, but what this dingbat does when she gets behind the wheel of a car affects us all. If she gets caught behind the wheel one more time with so much as powdered sugar on her nose, throw the goddamn book at her.
She's has too many second chances. Most of us are lucky to get just one. -- GregMaragos
Lock her up…
I am willing to pay the tax dollars so that her orange-colored waste of existence can be behind bars and not in front of the cameras wasting society's time and sympathies. -- swiftmaco
Get her professional help…
She's "acting out". IMHO jail is less called for in her (and others like her) case than psychotherapy, probably including medication. -- John Arthur
Get her a reality check…
Another Paris Hilton. Doesn't this gal realize how privileged she is? There are people in this world starving, living in refugee camps and worse -- and she could have been one of them. Instead of running around being a self-centered self-indulgent fool, she could put her money and celebrity to some good use. […] -- irishchannel1
Give her a break…
[ L]indsay is a working actress/model/singer. She's not a bum. It wouldn't make sense to throw her in jail while she's paying taxes. In this case, I think Fashion Law (an adjunct of entertainment law) applies: models traditionally wear clothes and jewelry that don't belong to them. Let it slide, give her a break. -- mike.peters2135
RELATED:
It's more like 'Egypped' as Lindsay Lohan dominates the Opinion eyeballs
Lindsay Lohan, you're no Farrah Fawcett
-- Alexandra Le Tellier
Photo: Actress Lindsay Lohan during her arraignment for a felony count of grand theft on Thursday in Los Angeles. Lohan was charged with a felony count of grand theft for allegedly stealing a $2,500 necklace from a jewelry store in Venice. Credit: Mario Anzuoni-Pool / Getty Images
"Fare" not "Fair"
Posted by: Spell Check | February 11, 2011 at 08:41 PM
C'mon LA Times.... Spell Check has already pointed out the error and you still haven't fixed it. The editor and the writer couldn't get the spelling write? Is is proper spelling if I right like this?
Posted by: peter c | February 11, 2011 at 08:47 PM
"Common sense suggests that Lohan is being treated generously. "
Not really. You are showing a picture of her in court for the jewelry incident. Common sense, would normally point to the fact that the notion that a woman worth over 10 million and perhaps upwards of 100 million dollars would need to steal a relatively cheap necklace makes no sense. Or the fact that the security guards just happened to let her waltz out of the store with that on. If I had done that, the guard surly would have tackled me at the door. THAT is what they are paid for. OR what about the fact that it's a store that is well known for lending out jewelry all the time to other big stars? They claim she stole it, yet they don't even bother to call her people to ask ? I mean, they know who Lindsay Lohan is. And Lindsay explains they knew she had it. Then the store claims they had pictures of her putting it in her purse. Yet they could not produce these pictures. Yet other pictures show her again wearing it.
I'm no big fan of the girl, and know she's been in trouble before with drugs etc, but with this, I'd have to call in the store owners and some experts to look at the evidence. Perhaps it's based on a publicity stunt, but at this point I'd be looking to charge the store owners with a crime. Next - The store will have to produce proof that they didn't have a prior agreement to lend that to her, and she was trying to steal it by walking out wearing it. Which again, is a ridiculous charge.
As for having charges reduced, that's nothing new. She's abused substances, not killed someone. But I see you understand that anyway. But sure, if you write an article like this. You will get a long list of people who think she probably should get the most harsh treatment. Paris Hilton, actually wound up getting what I like to call the "Star Treatment". In other words, because the judge wanted to make absolutely sure the public didn't think she was letting Paris off too easily, Paris ended up getting a longer jail sentence than most average citizens committing the same crime (in that same area) would have gotten. Which is not really fair. That said, Lindsay is stupid and naive, yes, BUT I don't think she's gotten any special treatment at this point. I mean, they need to show she really tried to rob the place first of all. And that hasn't happened.
Posted by: Boing | February 11, 2011 at 08:47 PM
Lindsay Lohan, Charlie Sheen and all of the rest of the high profile dopeheads deserve to be sentenced to a year of unclogging sewers in Calcutta.
Posted by: mediocre | February 11, 2011 at 10:24 PM
SHE'S HUMAN!!!!! NOT PERFECT,
jail would only make her worse, it's not something that is easy to live with. she did a mistake ,so what! just because shes beautiful, famous and everyone hates on her does not mean that she is a bad person LET HER GET ON WITH HER LIFE!!!!!! love you linds :)
Posted by: felipe | February 11, 2011 at 10:28 PM
it's "fare", not "fair" you idiots. impressionable young people are reading your articles and you're turning them into idiots too.
Posted by: bruce | February 11, 2011 at 10:55 PM
What? When the press can't even use the correct homonym in an article heading, what is the world coming to? Is there no such things as editors any more?
As far as the topic at hand ... who cares. Why is she even news?
Posted by: sirene | February 11, 2011 at 11:12 PM
What? When the press can't even use the correct homonym in an article heading, what is the world coming to? Is there no such things as editors any more?
As far as the topic at hand ... who cares. Why is she even news?
Posted by: sirene | February 11, 2011 at 11:12 PM
How she would "fair" in court? Don't you mean "fare"? Really folks, is this a professional newspaper?
Posted by: Chakotay2 | February 12, 2011 at 12:17 AM
If I was a judge, and she was in my court, I would judge her on her behavior... Not so much on the Jewelry.
I wouldn't giver her jail time. There's no positive outcome of that.
I would, however, do the following:
1. Probation with frequent drug tests for serious drugs, not marijuana.
2. She's allowed to drink, but must have an alcohol breath tester installed in her cars.
3. Choose a worthwhile cause to do a lengthy community service. Possibly for environmental, homeless, or Veterans in need.
I had a personal experience where she interfered with my job, and my coworkers jobs while filming a night scene for "I Know Who Killed Me", in San Luis Obispo. She and her crew stayed at the beautiful Apple Farm Inn. It is a four star motel and restaurant with large beautiful grounds and flowers everywhere, overlooking the San Luis Creek.
She demanded that everything be quiet during the day for herself and her crew... instructing that the housekeeping staff to come in the evening instead of the morning... These people have families to take care of.
I was in landscape maintenance, and took pride in helping to keep the property beautiful and clean. My manager was off that day, and he left me a list of things to do. One was to vacuum the parking lot for leaves to keep the place clean for other guests. About noon, I did so and a housekeeping manager came running out to tell me to stop while I was starting on the courtyard where the crew was.... Upsets me to this day.
Furthermore, she trashed the tower sweet #300, and the furniture had to be replaced. I don't know the extent of the damage, but I'm sure the carpet had to be replaced as well.
Posted by: Damian | February 12, 2011 at 12:32 AM
La loca lohan is an attention whore. She doesn't respect the law and treats it like a joke if the judicial system continues spare her of "misbehavior". Lindsay needs a Tiger mom and maybe send to Asia for a public flogging. As the old saying goes, "Spare the rod, and spoil the child".
Posted by: FC | February 12, 2011 at 01:52 AM
How would Lindsay Lohan FARE in court? Where's the editor?
Posted by: william Melendy | February 12, 2011 at 04:53 AM
This may sound like a crazy idea when we can just as well conduct trials online, but maybe I'd wait to hear all of the evidence and then decide.
Posted by: Steve | February 12, 2011 at 05:42 AM
To know how Lindsay would 'fair' if YOU where in change only go to TMZ and the other quality papers who deal with celebs and read the comments on their story's. It's shocking to read how she would be burning at the stake.
To belittle her dress in court (go and watch 'The people versus Larry Flynt' for that matter), in an editorial none the less, and here asking for 'laymen'-justice is not that far away from stoning a 14-year girl accused of having an affair without a proper trial.
Posted by: Dutchy58 | February 12, 2011 at 05:54 AM
I would give Lindsay a pass on everything as long as she promised to move to Oklahoma and never come to California again.
Posted by: jimc | February 12, 2011 at 06:50 AM
I was going to comment on fair vs fare, but I see several others have already done so.
If I were running a major newspaper, I would REQUIRE that everyone who wrote for it be LITERATE!
Posted by: scoogy | February 12, 2011 at 06:59 AM
Addiction, complicated sexuality, very poor impulse control and, above all, a chronic need for negative attention left over from a childhood that gave her very little emotional nourishment, on top of a beauty and stardom that calls out the paparazzi out everytime . Ow! What a terrible mix.
Clearly she's a mess and can't handle herself.
But sending her to jail over and over again won't do very much for her except supply sadistic prison guards, inmates and gossip columnists with a satisfying source of amusement.
Moreover, no one really believes the public has to be protected from her.
She's self-destructive, her aggression is directed towards herself, her own reputation, her own self-esteem.
Can she finally be declared incompetent and have a carefully selected state-appointed guardian? It's unfortunate that she doesn't have one good parent like Britney Spears, but she needs care. I dunno who'd want such a job: Steven Spielberg or Tom Hanks seem like perfect candidates: powerful, compassionate and relatively sane in the midst of Hollywood craziness.
Anyway, although she's 23 she never grew up and is a female equivalent of the Puer Aeternus / Peter Pan. She's lovely, but apparently she's not bright enough to sort it out for herself -and it's clearly very complicated- so the courts should free themselves of this recurrent problem and get the little girl some genuine help. Without this she's a former child-star suicide waiting to happen. --Really kind of sad, isn't it?
Posted by: Giles Slade | February 12, 2011 at 07:01 AM
You get the justice you can afford.The average person would have been in jail a long time ago.
Posted by: Ed Brazas | February 12, 2011 at 07:07 AM
She's an addict, so I'd treat her like one. No drugs, no alcohol, no clubs, no associating with known felons. She'd be subject to random drug and alcohol testing, and her parole officer could inspect her house at any time, without a warrant. I'd have weekly progress meetings, to check on her status. Any violations, and she's back in rehab for at least six months. All of this on her own dime - taxpayers shouldn't have to pay to monitor her.
Posted by: Steve | February 12, 2011 at 08:38 AM
To be fair I would say Lindsay Lohan has fared better than most of us would have. Because Lohan fared better than the average person would have fared does this mean that she was treated fairly or unfairly? If they throws the book at Lindsay she will not fare well in court. That is my fair fare opinion for now (MFFOFN) lol
Posted by: Welrdelr | February 12, 2011 at 08:57 AM
My comment had to be edited ... It did not fare well and it is fair to say that I only notice the mistakes after I posted my fair comment? My fair comment follows:
To be fair I would say Lindsay Lohan has fared better than most of us would have fared. Because Lohan fared better than the average person would have fared does this mean that she was treated fairly or unfairly? If they throw the book at Lindsay she will not fare well in court. That is my fair fare opinion for now (MFFOFN) lol
Posted by: Welrdelr | February 12, 2011 at 09:10 AM
One wonders, Why doesn't Charlie Sheen merit this sort of public and legal attention? Cocaine is illegal. Prostitution is illegal. Repeated public intoxication is illegal. Beating your wife is illegal. Yet Charlie Sheen did all these things (and many more), but suffers no real punishment, no calls from the public for his imprisonment.
And don't even get me started about Mel Gibson, who committed a felony (drunk driving) that was expunged from his record after a pitiful term of community service that he didn't even perform himself. We've all heard the phone messages - yet public sympathy lies with Gibson, and obviously he has the Malibu sheriff under control, while I suppose the DA cowers at Mel's might.
Those who vilify Lohan's behavior might note that she is single, with no family or children to suffer her neglect, and that her antics have caused harm to no one but herself. While Sheen regularly abuses women, and as I said, don't get me started about Gibson, both "family men" whose children are no doubt traumatized for life by their fathers' abuses.
Lohan is targeted because she is a woman and in our society this is not how "proper women" behave. The only REAL mistakes Lohan has made, in both American and Hollywood value systems, are having been born a woman and not making enough hit movies.
Posted by: Cal Godot | February 12, 2011 at 09:32 AM
I worked at a fancy BH jewelry store for a few years.
When a client was trying on stuff it was my responsibility to make sure they took it all off before leaving the store.
There is a video showing she had it around her neck as she left. So why didn't the store remind her to take it off?
This smells like a store the wants a lot of free PR at Lindsay's expense. I'll not shop there after watching this fiasco.
Posted by: Mary | February 12, 2011 at 10:05 AM
Frequent drug and alcohol tests (urine and blood) have been shown to get good results when backed up by threat of punishment for failure to adhere to abstinence. She put herself in this position but as most substance abusers her thinking is muddled. She's news because she's a celebrity. I think it just makes it harder for her. The law should apply to her the same as to anyone but unfortunately our laws don't really solve the problem. That's finally up to her.
Posted by: Barbara | February 12, 2011 at 10:52 AM
Gee, if Lindsay Lohan appeared before me on this necklace matter, I would need to hear and see the evidence before I decided on doing anything. Life seems a lot simpler for those who already know she's guilty and deserves punishment, and I devoutly hope that none of these ninnies are, in fact, judges.
Posted by: Paul | February 12, 2011 at 11:29 AM
I'd put her under house arrest. But it would be at my house :o)
Posted by: Rocco | February 12, 2011 at 01:47 PM
Remember: "They said I was pretty and I didn't have to pay" from the anti Drug commercials?
Posted by: Willie | February 12, 2011 at 02:59 PM
If I could decide Lindsay's fate??? INDETRMINATE SENTENCE AT A LONG-TERM, PSYCHIATRIC HOSPTIAL! When she can prove she has the MATURITY as well as the INTELLIGENCE to conduct herself like a responsible person, then should be let out-with a GPS device, and to a supervised setting of course! Until then, she should be segregated from society!
Posted by: Anti-Gang Banger | February 12, 2011 at 03:31 PM
My perception is that celebrity status is a two-edged sword. If a celeb is perceived as an arrogant jerk hotel staff, shop clerks, limo drivers etc. are more likely to rat them out and system is more likely to double down on them. On the other hand, if a humanitarian like Paul Newman had ever been busted for DUI he probably would have gotten some specially lenient treatment.
Incidentally, it is extremely common for stars and models to be loaned jewelry and clothing for marketing purposes so the felony charge seems to smell a bit.
Posted by: J Reece | February 12, 2011 at 04:44 PM
she's too good-looking to go to jail, if I were the judge, I'm sure we(Lindsay and I) could work out something on the side!!
Posted by: glenn grab | February 12, 2011 at 05:40 PM
there are more gang members getting away with twice as much or more lets let another rapist or bank robber out and keep wasting our time on Lindsay, if she was a nobody you wouldn't even be reading this, what she done or didn't happens everyday and no one else care, give her a break.
ss
Posted by: sandy | February 12, 2011 at 07:23 PM
If it were my call she'd be out of breaks and 2nd chances. She is a stone cold scheming addict who will do anything to get to her drug of choice. She is a good con lady too. She has many convinced she is only making missteps. I'm convinced she is trying to deceive everyone around her. Lock her up now!
Posted by: Norm Silver | February 12, 2011 at 10:56 PM
In the days of three strikes people do not like to see priviliged treatment when it comes to the rich, famous or powerful.
This girl plays by a different set of rules and no one has ever, "slapped her hand", for getting in the cookie jar.
She needs at least one year of intensive treatment.
Posted by: TMC | February 13, 2011 at 06:02 AM
Could we broker a deal with the Italians to trade Lindsey for Amanda Knox? The Italians would get their American starlet; Lindsey would get a new, Euro/international forum; and Amanda, who is most likely innocent, would get to come home.
Posted by: Dave | February 13, 2011 at 06:57 AM
Giving preferential treatment is a form of enabling. It encourages drug dependent persons to become more addicted and less functional. I don't understand why the legal system seems so blind in this case. Is it a case of Lohan getting lesser sentences and better confinement conditions because she can pay for top legal representation, or merely because of her celebrity status? Neither reason is acceptable.
Posted by: Eric S | February 13, 2011 at 08:02 AM
Straight to jail - 5 years - no reduction in sentencing - remand immediately - END.
Posted by: Winski | February 13, 2011 at 08:52 AM
I'm not a defender of Lohan. She is responsible for the trouble she has found herself in. However, this most recent case is different. Many celebrities are loaned bling for different events and functions. This was the case with Lohan. No one broke into a store and stole anything. It was never in doubt as to who had the item in their possession; it was her. What she is guilty of is not returning the said bling in a timely way. But the fact remains that before any charges were formally filed, the item was returned. So why the charge of grand theft? This is another example of an Los Angeles D.A. doing what many of them do best: ambulance chasing or some other such thing involving a celebrity because of all the attention it gets them. L.A. is full of crime and criminals. This is the best they can come up with. Who is the idiot that thought this was a case worth an indictment? That fool needs to be replaced.
Posted by: devo | February 13, 2011 at 09:15 AM
Put her away for a long long time as I'm tired of hearing about her. She is a spoiled brat and theif, liar, drug addict, drunk, and basically a bad person and an accident waiting to happen so some kid in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Posted by: mipak | February 13, 2011 at 10:35 AM
*** She needs to go to jail to get and stay clean and sober and to adjust to reality. Also, has it occurred to anyone that Danette Meyers may be the person who saves her life? Heath Ledger, Brittany Murphy, DJ AM, etc., are all examples of where the law not only protects society, but the offender too. ***
Posted by: AJLind | February 13, 2011 at 11:27 AM
The Hollywood establishment should leverage the Lindsay Lohan tragedy to pursue a program to rid itself of drug usage including marijuana use. Hollywood leadership needs to step up and recognize that through its productions it glorifies drug usage and, in turn, prompts others to experiment with and eventually become dependent on drugs. Hollywood should disavow drug consumption and lead the effort to decrease drug demand. The benefits to the US would dramatically include: reduced drug violence, less street crime, decreased illegal immigration and improved qualifty of the life. The time to take action is now.
Posted by: Ray Siuta | February 13, 2011 at 04:39 PM
WHATS THE BIG FUSS? ELIMINATE THE NAME AND IT BOILS DOWN TO MONEY VERSUS NO MONEY/ IF THIS IF THAT MIND YOUR OWN FRICKEN BUSINESS AND DONT BE ENVIOUS IF YOU OR A FAMILY MEMEMBER WERE IN HER SHOES IM SURE YOU WOULD WOULD WANT PRIVACY TRUST THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM TO DO WHATS FIT
Posted by: ronnie valencia | February 13, 2011 at 09:49 PM
MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS IT BOILS DOWN TO HAVING MONEY AND NOT HAVING MONEY. THE JUDICIAL SYSTEM WILL CONDUCT ITSELF WITH AN APROPRIATE DECISION. IF THIS IF THAT YOU PEOPLE ARE SICKENING.
Posted by: ronnie valencia | February 13, 2011 at 09:53 PM
A repeat offender should not receive leniency. The idea that anyone can have a "lengthy" criminal conviction record should be repugnant to a well-ordered society. And the saddest component of her story is that if she were not white and affluent, she would be sitting in prison for a long time. M.K. Riewer
Posted by: Mary K. Riewer | February 14, 2011 at 03:31 AM
If I were the judge, I'd throw the book at her. No excuses.
Posted by: Sabrina | February 14, 2011 at 07:40 AM
To the Slam - TODAY.
Posted by: Winski | February 14, 2011 at 08:47 AM
To the Slam - TODAY.
Posted by: Winski | February 14, 2011 at 08:47 AM
I think she needs to be sentenced to a public face-painting b****-slapping ala Cher in Moonstruck.
Posted by: Tannim | February 14, 2011 at 10:23 AM
If I were the Judge, I would cut her loose from probation period, fine her for the jewelry to pay court costs, the Police, and the Jewelry store if she plead guilty. I would then suspend her sentence, tell her to get her act together, redeem her career and her reputation, grow up, and NEVER show up in this court again. I would warn her that any more infractions, and she will spend 3 years in State Prison. End of case.
Posted by: Victor | February 14, 2011 at 01:52 PM
Every time I've gone to court, I've had to be there by 9AM. Every time I've gone to court, there has been a dress code.
Posted by: AndrewB | February 15, 2011 at 02:54 PM