I guess I've gotten a ride from too many people who may have been .01 or .02 over the limit and felt totally safe in the car with them, and driven with other people stone cold sober and felt like my life was in danger.  

I feel that if you're driving safely, I don't care what is in your blood.  I'm ok with punishing reckless driving, drunk or sober, even if nobody gets hurt, since its logical to believe somebody will get hurt if you're doing 105 and swerving.  I just don't follow the logic that a driver that is .01 or .02 over the limit is automatically reckless.  And by punishment I mean a fine or community service, certainly not jail if nobody gets hurt.

Shooting at people only hurts them if you hit them. Therefore, if you miss there should be no punishment.

   If you simply believe that no one should go to jail unless someone dies then you need to work for essentially a totalreform of the system.

  The issue HERE is whether people think this particular person received a greater, lesser or "average" sentence for what she did. for the most part most of the assertions that she got off easy because of her status seem as misplaced as the assetions she was treated more harsgly because of who she is.

  This seems a pretty good case to use as an example of someone who received a reasonable sentence  FOR WHAT SHE DID in light of the laws applicable to the conduct. Everyone seems to want to use this to support their preconceived perceptions and to promote their personal biases despite the fact this particular case is  remarkableyill-suited for such transparent  exploitation regardless of what agenda one wants to argue.

  She is being punished for DUI after having her initial sentence of probation revoked for failure to abide by its terms.

  DUI does not require harm or intent to harm. It is unlawful because SOCIETY has deemed it an unreasonably dangerous act and legislation has thus been passed outlawing and prescribing penalties.

  This is perhaps the seminal example of a law where DETERRENCE is both an intended and real consequence of the law. A (seemingly huge)  majority believes that fewer people will drive drunk and thus create less potential for harm if it is illegal and the penalties are relatively severe.

  The prohibition of murder probably has very limited deterrent effect precisely because the state of mind necessary to murder is one where rational weighing of legal consequences often plays little role. The prohibition of drunk driving on the other hand is one where knowing the conswqiences of getting caught very likely causes many people to refrain. Fewer drunk drivers is a good thing because it indisputably lessens the risk of harm everyone (including the potential drunk driver) faces on the roads.

  Had Hilton simply abided by  the very reasonable terms of her probation, she would not now face jail. She refused to do that intentionally violated her probation and the law against driving on a revoked license. Having irrefutably demonstrated her unwillingness to obey the law, she came before a judge who no doubt considered that it would be ineffective to tell her a second time to do what she wouldn't the first.  

   She wouldn't even feign being contrite and no doubt angered the judge with unmitigated lack of respect for the law and for the court. THAT may have been a factor in her setence, but why shouldn't it be? It should be-- whether you are Paris Hilton or Joe Sixpack.

  I simply don't see how this can be twisted into: this sentence was imposed because of who she is. I'm not aware of any unkowns who could behave as she has and walked away with a "stern lecture" to be a good boy or girl.