Lohan Sentenced by Broken Justice System

by John M. Curtis
(310) 204-8700

Copyright July 7, 2010
All Rights Reserved.                                

            Throwing the book at 24-year old actress Lindsay Lohan, Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Marsha N. Revel highlighted a broken judicial system, grandstanding in high-profile celebrity trials.  Ever since the 1995 O.J. Simpson Trial, judicial showboating has become the rule of the day.  Television audiences around the globe watched Superior Court Judge Lance Ito play to the cameras and turn the courtroom on its head.  When Paris Hilton was sentenced May 4, 2007 to 45 days in county jail by Los Angeles Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer, it shocked many people seeing alternatives to jail.  While Paris served only 23 days, putting her away served no purpose other than grandstanding.  Few, if any, thought Paris’ marginal DUI and minor probation violations warranted jail-time Like Paris, had Lindsay not been a celebrity, she probably would have gotten probation.

            Revel insisted that Lohan lied repeatedly to the court about her participation in alcohol treatment following two drunk-driving convictions in 2007.  “There were a number of instances of [Lohan] not taking things seriously,” said Revel.  “It’s like someone who cheats but doesn’t think it’s cheating if they don’t get caught,” said Revel, revealing the twisted logic for Lohan’s harsh sentencing.  Revel’s battered ego had no choice but to lash out at the flashy Hollywood actress.  Justice isn’t served when the punishments don’t fit the crimes, especially where drugs or alcohol are concerned.  Whether or not Linday had two DUI’s but somehow, because of work commitments, couldn’t fulfill the exact terms of her probation, doesn’t warrant such excessive punishment.  While she deserves a stiff fine or more probation sending her to jail serves no one other than the judge’s ego.

            Revel meted out three 30-day sentences and ordered Lindsay to spend 90 days in a lockdown drug rehab facility.  Whatever the so-called probation violations, Revel knows that they don’t warrant jail-time but rather a sensible approach toward  rehabilitation.  With her current frenzied work-schedule, Revel should show less umbrage and more judicial temperance.  Had prosecutors vocally accused Lindsay of “lying and deceit,” a responsible judge would have sustained objections.  Accusing the actress of “lying and deceit” assumes facts not in evidence,” warranting strong objections, accept for the fact that it’s the judge acting inappropriately, not prosecutors.  When judges act inappropriately or overstep their authority, there’s still recourse from the supervising judge of the Los Angeles Superior Court.  Grandstanding or playing to cameras can’t be at the expense of justice.

            Celebrity justice today reflects the excessively harsh punishment meted out by publicity-seeking judges to make examples out of celebrities.  Not only do celebrities face unduly harsh sentences they expect judges to play to the cameras.  “As far as I knew, I was in compliance with my programs,” Lohan told the court, only to a skeptical judge, more upset and overreacting about misunderstandings and content to make accusations.  “I wasn’t trying to get special treatment,” said Lindsay, not realizing that the judge assured that she would indeed get far harsher treatment than she deserved.  Revel can’t explain how jail-time serves either an overcrowded prison system or nonviolent drug or alcohol-related offenders in need to rehab.  Throwing the book at Lohan gives Revel some cheap headlines but doesn’t serve anyone’s justice.  Lohan is expected to serve around a quarter of her 90-day sentence.

            Lindsay’s harsh sentencing gives a boost to supporters of California’s attempt to legalize marijuana.  While there’s controversy over the benefits of marijuana, there’s no controversy when it comes to wasting precious tax revenue on nonviolent alcoholics and drug users.  California’s massive budget deficits aren’t helped by an exploding prison system, busting at the seams with nonviolent drug-related offenders.  Watching Revel throw the book at Lindsay speaks volumes about the need to restrain judges from arbitrary and capricious sentencing.  While Paris Hilton’s 2007 sentence was disgraceful, Lohan’s breaks new ground for exploiting celebrities to wind up face-to-face on “Larry King Live.”  Better checks and balances need to be built into the judicial system to prevent more abuses of judicial authority.  No judge should seek publicity at the expense of criminal defendants. 

            Celebrity justice requires more judicial restraint and less grandstanding before the cameras.  Unduly harsh sentences serve no one other that the judge’s grandiosity.  Lohand deserved a reprimand, fines, perhaps more probation but not serving time in county jail.  While prosecutors didn’t recommend Pavel’s harsh sentencing, they insisted Lindsay ignored the Dec. 2009 court order to attend at least one DUI class a week.  “Not once, but seven times she did not complied with this court’s orders,” said Deputy DA Danetted Meyers, nitpicking about dates and times.  Whether or not Lindsay completed weekly DUI classes, she was still on schedule to complete her mandatory requirement by the July 15 deadline.  “She’s gotten it together,” said Defense Atty. Shawn Chapman Marashall.  Locking Lindsay up gives Revel some fleeting fame but gives the criminal justice system another black eye.

John M. Curtis writes politically neutral commentary analyzing spin in national and global news. He's editor of OnlineColumnist.com and author of Dodging The Bullet and Operation Charisma.