Lindsay Lohan and Grand Theft Necklace

By Jeralyn, Section Crime in the News
Posted on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:18:00 AM EST
Tags: lindsay lohan (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

So it appears Lindsay Lohan was captured on camera at the jewelry store wearing the exact $2,500 necklace she will be charged with grand theft this afternoon in court in LA. Her assistant returned the necklace to the police before the search warrant for her house was executed.

So: One of a few things happened: Lindsay tried on the necklace, liked it, and told her assistant to make the arrangements for her to have it on a loaner basis --and the assistant forgot and didn't tell the store. So the store, not having the lending paperwork filled out, thought it had been stolen. Second case scenario: Lindsay tried on the necklace and it is so light she didnt' realize she still had it on when she left the shop. As soon as she was told the police were going to do a search warrant, she told her friend to bring it back Third case scenario, Lindsay tried on the necklace to see if it would go with a specific outfit she had at home. She asked the salesgirl if she could take it home to match with the outfit, promising to return to either buy it or return it. She had other things on her mind for a few days and forgot, and as soon as the news of a search warrant surfaced, she had her assistant return it.

Whichever one it is, it sounds like Lindsay will say (1) borrowing jewelry is her and everyone else's customary practice and stars have assistants to deal with the paperwork; she never intended to permanently deprive the store of the necklace (I bet we'll hear that once she wore it at home with her clothes she decided and asked for it to be returned -- maybe even say she told her aide to return it. [More...]

I don't know about California law, but every other jurisdiction I can think of requires the perp to have intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the property. So if her aide falls on her sword and testifies, yes , Lindsay told me to tell the storeowner, it's how we do these things, and I forgot, and then Lindsay told me to return it as soon as she learned the aide didn't follow Linday's instructions and then fired the aide, she maybe has a defense.

Even though the charge will be a felony, Lindsay could get off with a plea to a lesser misdemeanor charge and probation to run concurrent with her current probation.Or the Judge could terminate her concurrent probation early, and put her on probation for the necklace as a way of keeping tabs on her a few more years. I'd bet 90 to 1 she doesn't get a state prison sentence out of this. At most, probation with a smidgen of county jail time, followed by probation.

Also, California allows judges to reduce felonies to misdemeanors if the person complies with probation. That's what happened with Wynona Ryder I attended a day of Wynona's trial and it was clear to me she was not going to jail, despite being charged with stealing $6,000. of merchandise.

< Tuesday Night Open Thread | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Lindsay Lohan and Grand Theft Necklace | 70 comments (70 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Why do I get the feeling that if (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 07:06:49 AM EST

this had happened with a Hollywood notable who didn't have such a troubled history/reputation, the whole thing would have been handled a lot more diplomatically, without bringing the police into it - regardless of whether the necklace had been intended to be taken?

Did she actually steal the necklace? I have no idea, but while the judicial system is supposed to treat her with a presumption of innocence, the media and the public are under no such imperative.

What Lindsay may have to start accepting is that she can no longer trade on her "stardom" in the same way she did before "the troubled years," and will have to do everything by the book, even if that may grate on her nerves; it's one of the prices to be paid for the decisions and choices she's made.

And the sad thing is that, as hard as she may be trying to turn her life around, the media are not likely to be her friend as she tries to do so - nothing she does or doesn't do is likely to be perfect enough for them to stop dogging her every move; tearing people down is sport for them, and those who aren't strong enough to withstand the pressure are almost doomed to give the media the kinds of sensational headlines they live for.

Honestly don't know why anyone would seek celebrity in this kind of environment.

Well, for the vast majority of us who have no... (none / 0) (#6)
by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:06:21 AM EST

stardom to trade on, it would be a warrant with at least a $10,000 surety bond. Maybe $25,000 for the non-glamor of it all.


I don't know that I think you can (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:38:43 AM EST

make such a blanket statement; a lot would depend, as these things always do, on the circumstances.

As for the Lohan situation, I've never been in a jewelry store that had $2,500 necklaces just sitting out for people to try on at will - you have to get someone to get it out of the case, are not left alone to try it on, and once you have it on, you aren't just allowed to roam freely, unaccompanied by a salesperson.

Is this different for famous people? Is it considered offensive for salespeople to stick with some famous person who is trying on jewelry?

I think there's more to the story, frankly, and I think it's unfair to pass judgment on Lohan - as it would be unfair with respect to anyone - based on media reports; yes, we know Lohan has had her problems, but I'm not all that enamored of the media's ability to get things right, either.


: Good point (none / 0) (#14)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:39:07 AM EST

As for the Lohan situation, I've never been in a jewelry store that had $2,500 necklaces just sitting out for people to try on at will - you have to get someone to get it out of the case, are not left alone to try it on, and once you have it on, you aren't just allowed to roam freely, unaccompanied by a salesperson.
There is more to this story yet to be told.

: I believe I can safely make that statement re. (none / 0) (#60)
by rhbrandon on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 04:05:30 PM EST

my clientele. I work as a state public defender.

: What is different about LL's situation (none / 0) (#62)
by Peter G on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 04:19:36 PM EST

is that high-end jewelry (and clothing) stores in places like L.A. do in fact lend items to "stars" to wear (that is, to be seen wearing) once, or for a limited time. It's good publicity and exposure for those shops, or so they think. They do not do this for ordinary customers; they'd have no reason to. So the explanation that she thought they had lent it to her is not absurd on its face, as it might seem to the ordinary person.

Will a jury find these (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 07:29:26 AM EST

any of rationales credible? The "I forgot I had it on" defense sometimes flys and sometimes doesn't for the non-celeb tried on similar charges.

how about another scenario (5.00 / 0) (#3)
by seabos84 on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 07:31:35 AM EST

a spoiled person who has had a lot of money and thinks the world revolves around her gets used to doing whatever she wants, and doe$n't notice that it is the Benjamins that fix everything, not her blaming everyone else lies?

rmm

Whatever occured... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 07:58:05 AM EST

misunderstanding ot attempted theft, the necklace has been returned to the rightful owner...no harm, no foul. The case should be closed instead wasting a bunch of time, money, resources...Cali is broke like many other states, and a big reason why is all the money we waste in the crime and punishment racket. I would hope the authorities have better things to do with their time and our money.

The public good in trying and possibly (5.00 / 1) (#5)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:03:08 AM EST

incarcerating Lohan is minimal. Her problems aren't with habitual thievery. Judge should force the store and lohab to settle on a rental fee, and tell them to stop wasting the court's time.

No, not a Lohan fan, nor a hater. But too often there's lending of jewelry, clothes, etc. to stars, and this could be handled so simply.


: Exactly... (none / 0) (#8)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:41:17 AM EST

it could be handled so simply...but as many people learn the hard way, once you bring in the authorities all parties surrender any control they may have of the situation...you're at the tender mercy of the authorities, who are neither tender or merciful.
It's why I always say think twice, sh*t think three times, before you drop any dimes....cuz once ya do ya can't go back. I wouldn't be surprised if this ends up hurting the jewelers business more than the value of the necklace.

OTOH (5.00 / 0) (#9)
by nyjets on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 09:17:04 AM EST

If she broke law, she should be punished. If not, there is nothing to stop her from doing it again.


If punishment was always the answer, (5.00 / 1) (#12)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:28:02 AM EST

the jails and prisons would not be overrun with people who were punished and went on to offend again, so I don't think there's a one-size-fits-all way to deal with those who end up in the criminal justice system. In addition to the things that often complicate things - poverty, lack of education and opportunity, addiction and abuse - there is the very real matter of those with the money for better legal representation receiving better treatment, and often escaping punishments, that those without means do not.

It's definitely not a perfect system, but unless we make a commitment to addressing the underlying reasons why people commit crimes in the first place, the dysfunction will continue.


Punishment... (none / 0) (#10)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 09:32:27 AM EST

can harden a person and practically insure they do it again...otoh, a little love, forgiveness, and understanding can do wonders to make a person see the err of their ways. Ya catch more flies with honey.


Don't have children (none / 0) (#41)
by me only on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:42:33 PM EST

I cannot afford them.


: Whats that supposed to mean? (none / 0) (#48)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 01:55:25 PM EST

I'd raise delinquents? Thanks for the vote of confidence.

well . . . . (none / 0) (#11)
by nycstray on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 09:45:37 AM EST

If not, there is nothing to stop her from doing it again.

there is the 3 strike law. do you realize if her dui's had been felonies, this would be strike 3?

honestly, this whole thing kinda stinks. seems to me it's getting a bit blown up/media-ized.


Looks like the DA (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:49:44 AM EST

Might use the fact that Lohan seems to have a history of questionable "borrowing".

Seems to me like a DA... (5.00 / 1) (#18)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:56:35 AM EST

searching for reasons to proceed, and get their name in the paper.


Seems to me (5.00 / 0) (#20)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:05:25 AM EST

She has a problem.


What a coincidence... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:24:42 AM EST

so does the DA's office.


Really? (5.00 / 0) (#26)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:27:46 AM EST

They shouldn't look into people who take $2500 necklaces without permission?


Not when the necklace... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:37:37 AM EST

has been returned and reasonable doubt exists as to whether it was a simple loan with incomplete paperwork....this is one to close the file on if I ever saw one.


Reasonable Doubt (none / 0) (#35)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:56:32 AM EST

is for a jury to decide


Prosecutors have discretion... (none / 0) (#36)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:58:09 AM EST

as to whether to prosecute.


Do your think Lohan should get a (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:44:15 PM EST

break, i.e., decline to prosecute, because she's a celeb? How to explain that to the jewelry store owner, who, I assume, wants a case filed against her.


No... (none / 0) (#47)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 01:36:12 PM EST

her celebrity has nothing to do with it, except as it relates to celebrity freebies and friendly loaner policies by jewelers that celebs often enjoy.

I'm saying drop it because the jeweler has their necklace back, and there is reasonable doubt as to whether it was a theft or a misunderstanding.

JB...The prosecutor can nip reasonable doubt in the bud before bringing the case forward...aka discretion. Save everybody time, money, grief...especially the over-burdened LA taxpayer.


My guess is (none / 0) (#54)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:15:18 PM EST

Many of "the overburdened LA Taxpayer" would say they are tired of this girl getting a wrap on the knuckles jsut to get into trouble again, and that she needs to be dealt with in a serious way.

They are paying for her anyways - for her probation officer, to the law/legal personnel that have to deal with her every time she screws up.


The anger and resentment coming across (5.00 / 1) (#57)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:45:18 PM EST

in your comments is kind of over-the-top, given that no one - at least no one on this blog - knows the entire story; you keep saying you don't know if she's guilty or not, but you manage to find ways to rip Lohan every chance you get: she's spoiled, she's a brat, she doesn't deserve so many breaks, she's got plenty of money to get the help she needs and isn't (actually, I don't think she's that well off anymore - when you don't work, you don't make money - also her fault, no doubt), she's taking advantage of the taxpayers, and on and on and on.

You would be a prosecutor's dream juror...

She's a mess, at least from what we've seen and read; I just don't get the anger and resentment - it's not as if what is happening to her is affecting you in any way.

But, if Lindsay Lohan is supposed to be the poster child for wasting the taxpayers' money, she must be one in a series numbering in the hundreds of thousands - which doesn't make it okay, mind you, but she isn't worth the level of vituperation being leveled at her.

Perhaps soon we will know the whole story; there's a part of me that hopes it won't make you happy - because taking joy in the misfortunes of others is just too sad for words.


Thanks for the psychoanalysis (none / 0) (#59)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:50:59 PM EST

You're completely wrong and off-base, of course, since you don't know me nor are you licensed to make such diagnoses, but thanks just the same.

I just tire of excuses being made for people who continue to get chance after chance and screw up. And yet, you want me to feel sorry for people like that. I realize it's easier to view people as victims of their own making, and therefore, it's easier to rationalize and excuse their behavior.

No thanks. I'll reserve my sympathy for others.


: I don't see anyone here making (none / 0) (#61)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 04:09:20 PM EST

excuses for Lohan - what I see are people who understand that we still don't know the whole story, and some are unwilling to try and convict her here or in the media.
I am a firm believer that people need to deal with the consequences of their actions, and I don't disagree that Lohan should be held accountable for hers.
But the thing is that Lohan didn't give herself those breaks, they were given to her by the good people of the criminal justice system, and by anyone who looked the other way. Did lawyers help her get those breaks? Sure - but all they could do was plead on her behalf; after that it was in someone else's hands.
Yes, maybe it would be better for her to have to have faced the full consequences from the first time she made a bad decision, but in this instance, we don't even know that she did anything wrong.
I've not asked you to feel sorry for anyone, just to consider that you don't know the whole story, that Lohan may have control over her actions, but she doesn't have control over the actions of others.

If thats how they feel... (none / 0) (#58)
by kdog on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:49:14 PM EST

they deserve bankruptcy or 20% state income tax rates to pay for all the probation officers, cops, prosecutors, and prisons they crave.

And of course, the tune changes quick when its a friend or loved one going through the L&O meat grinder.


How is there reasonable doubt when (none / 0) (#65)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 05:56:23 PM EST

no evidence has yet been presented under oath in a court of law?


A good question (none / 0) (#69)
by Towanda on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:52:12 PM EST

but then, there is much to question in this thread!


: I really shouldn't read this type of post and (none / 0) (#73)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:46:27 PM EST

the ocmments. Look-e-loo.

So? (none / 0) (#38)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:01:16 PM EST

He has to get reelected doesn't he? (none / 0) (#51)
by republicratitarian on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 02:54:14 PM EST

Ah. Suspected clepto. (none / 0) (#19)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:04:14 AM EST

Her life is a mess.


I recall the mink and Rolex stories. Had (none / 0) (#31)
by Angel on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:46:00 AM EST

forgotten about them until I saw your post. I have to wonder if the prosecution would really go to this much trouble if they didn't think they had a case. And why would the jewelry store want to be involved in this if they didn't think she stole the necklace? Seems like bad publicity for them if that isn't the case.


your links fails to mention (none / 0) (#67)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:19:18 PM EST

Elle Magazine issued a statement saying it did not suspect Lindsay was involved in the disappearance of the necklace from the photoshoot:

"I can confirm on behalf of ELLE magazine that items of jewelry went missing from an ELLE photo shoot two weeks ago and the matter is now being investigated by the police. ELLE has no reason to believe that Lindsay Lohan was in any way responsible and has no further comment to make."

: Interesting (none / 0) (#70)
by Towanda on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:53:42 PM EST

In the spin world, "has no reason to believe" is far from a resounding statement that it does not suspect Lohan.

As a fellow child of terminal dysfuntion.. (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by Dadler on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:08:02 AM EST

...I can tell you, I went through a kleptomania phase, granted at a much younger age, that makes this necklace "theft" look like gift exchange day at the office. I stole everything. Candy, socks, Playboys, you name it. A feeling of intense disconnection leads to actions of disconnection.

That said, I really wish all news about Lohan would go away. She's, obviously, getting a tougher deal because of who she is, how visible she is, etc.

And her history (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:10:41 AM EST

there are people out there... (none / 0) (#23)
by Dadler on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:12:47 AM EST

...with MUCH worse histories. she's a trophy. prosecutors love trophies. you really think she's such a menace she deserves THIS much attention and diversion of resources. i don't.


Oh (5.00 / 0) (#24)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:16:44 AM EST

I wish the news would stop focusing on her. But I don't think the law should look away when things like a $2500 necklace are taken. They need to at least look into it.


I don't think anyone's suggesting that (5.00 / 1) (#27)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:29:15 AM EST

the law close its eyes here, but I do think people are suggesting that we don't know all there is to know and that regardless of what any of us suspect, Lohan - like everyone else - deserves the presumption of innocence and not a trial-and-conviction by media.

She may very well have a problem, or, she could very well have a plausible reason/explanation that no one is giving any weight to because they would prefer to believe that her "history" or the fact that she has a history means that she is automatically guilty.

I don't have any more information than anyone else, so all I can do is (1) keep an open mind and (2) remember that no one is consulting me regarding guilt or innocence and what I think is pretty much meaningless.

And I can have compassion for someone who may be so dysfunctional that continued dysfunctional behavior feels normal to her, so she's doing what she knows how to do. She could have so little self-esteem that she believes she doesn't deserve a happy life and so inserts herself in situations that can only lead to more unhappiness.

I don't know.

I wish for her what I wish for anyone who is clearly having a tough time: that she get whatever help she needs, that she comes to understand that taking responsibility for one's actions is part of the maturation process and that whatever she has done or not done, she deserves as much happiness as anyone.

I hope she gets there.


Of course (none / 0) (#37)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:00:19 PM EST

But one can have compassion for someone without excusing their behavior.

I don't know if she's legally guilty or not either, but I can look at her and say that because of her fame she has had way more chances to get her act together and had more opporutnities to get help than nost people would have.


And sometimes, when someone's (none / 0) (#39)
by Anne on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:30:29 PM EST

behavior is of the "acting out" or "cry for help" variety, it does them no favors to keep giving them a pass because of their celebrity or money or connections.

Some people just aren't fixable, and some are further broken by their experiences with the system; the system will never be able to accommodate the complexity of the human race and the conditions in which it lives, but we could be doing a much better job addressing the underlying factors that contribute to crime - except that people don't want to spend the money that would require.


Yes, but of course (5.00 / 0) (#40)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:32:19 PM EST

That is not the case here. She had the money and opportunity to get help.


: she does not have money (none / 0) (#66)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:05:00 PM EST

reportedly. She hasn't worked in a while. So unless you know something TMZ and other news sources don't, please refrain from stating your speculation as fact.

Let's look on the bright side. (5.00 / 1) (#29)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:38:09 AM EST

She wasn't driving the getaway car...

Re: Intent (none / 0) (#13)
by Harry Saxon on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:31:53 AM EST

I don't know about California law, but every other jurisdiction I can think of requires the perp to have intended to permanently deprive the rightful owner of the property.

But if she treated the property as if it were her own, and there is no evidence that she thought she was getting it as a loaner, she could be in a very sticky wicket indeed.

Mens rea:

Mens rea
Intention to permanently deprive - defined at s.73(12) as treating property as it belongs to the accused, rather than the owner.
Dishonestly - s.73(2) creates a negative definition of the term 'dishonestly'. The section deems only three circumstances when the accused is deemed to have been acting honestly. These are a belief in a legal claim of right (s.73(2)(a)), a belief that the owner would have consented (s.73(2)(b)), or a belief the owner could not be found(s.73(2)(c))

Click or Wiki Me

What about the store actions? (none / 0) (#15)
by waldenpond on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:41:05 AM EST

Seems to me, any scenario is dependent on the store. If the store has records of phone calls, letters or certified mail, doesn't that impact the claim the assistant is to blame (or can be blamed)? If there are contact records that might indicate a scenario where she 'borrowed' but realized there was a record keeping error and she attempted to benefit from that error.

Here's a question from an ordinary citizen: can Lohan show that her assistant was allowed to sign for other loans? If so, your scenarios are plausible. If other instances required Lohan's signature before leaving with the item, the argument is weakened. Hopefully, she doesn't have prior records at this same store indicating she was required to sign before leaving.

: She still could have forgotten to sign (none / 0) (#16)
by nycstray on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 10:48:08 AM EST

distracted etc. OR, the store could have forgotten to ask her to, same reason. OR, perhaps this is an op to get some free publicity . . . .

They threw the book at Winona Rider (none / 0) (#30)
by KD on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:40:39 AM EST

Prosecutors refused a plea bargain.

Wasn't she caught on tape bagging the goods? (none / 0) (#32)
by Angel on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:46:59 AM EST

The real reason was (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 11:51:11 AM EST

that the DA's office hated her role in Mr. Deeds. Some folks still prefer vintage black and white films.


Cooley still bucking for higher office? (none / 0) (#43)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 12:46:44 PM EST

No, I still don't believe that.


: I was plenty surprised she won. (none / 0) (#64)
by oculus on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 05:52:34 PM EST

The Ryder case was different... (none / 0) (#50)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 02:39:47 PM EST

I think one defense floating was that she was practicing for a role...

I'm not a Lohan fan, particularly, but she does seem to have been singled out as a target do jour based on previous behavior.

It took almost 3 weeks for the owner to report this one to be filed, according to the CNN report, and the necklace was handed back before the search warrant was issued.

Could it have been a loaner that took too long for the return? I don't know, but it's a long way from Ryder bagging lots of goods in my view thus far. YMMV... the great thing about this site.


: Um, I would not rely on the linked report (none / 0) (#52)
by Towanda on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 02:58:25 PM EST

since the reporter has a bit of a problem with writing clearly -- or has a crystal ball? Who needs lawyers, when CNN can predict the legal future and what a judge will say three weeks hence!

The charge comes . . . less than three weeks before a judge said he might free her from supervised probation.

Odds are pretty good that LL, and everyone else (none / 0) (#49)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 02:04:26 PM EST

that tries on this store's jewelry, are on it's security camera.


My sentiments exactly. She has repeatedly (none / 0) (#53)
by Angel on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:05:05 PM EST

been accused of taking valuable items that don't belong to her. Yes, she's a spoiled brat who thinks she's entitled. I'm betting she will try to blame everything on her assistant.

And as for the delay in reporting the theft - perhaps the jewelry store tried to get it back through some reasonable means such as contacting her or her "people" and they wouldn't cooperate. I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the situation.

You know, I am glad to read (none / 0) (#55)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:35:18 PM EST

about some of these high profile cases. I think they are the 'bread and circuses' of our time though. I'd like to see some wall streeters and banksters perp-walked for what they did that was supposedly legal.

I'd love to see the originators of derivative trading, Merton and the fellow whose name I don't remember, have to come in, pay off, and re-design the CDS fisasco, the mortgage fiasco, etc.

The perspective-- a movie star who at least formerly had substance abuse problems, a few DUIs, and allegedly takes things gets arrested is important-- that's setting up what kdog sort of calls the cops versus little people syndrome. Mess with us, here's what happens to you, Mr. or Ms. working man...if we do it to movie stars, we'll slam you.

I agree with most of your theory (none / 0) (#56)
by jbindc on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 03:44:59 PM EST

Except, in this case (as many other high profile cases of years gone by), it seems that people in her position are actually accorded every opportunity to set herself straight and been given multiple chances that Mr. or Ms. working (wo)man would not get.

You think if you had as many issues as she did, that you would be walking around free, as she is?

(Answer: Not likely)


jb, we're close together on the analysis here. (none / 0) (#63)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 04:36:55 PM EST

I'd get some privilege based on age, position, education, race, and some other statuses. But I get these privileges already.

I think the system is so broken that when a Lindsey Lohan might walk away scot-free, I'm actually pleased with this outcome.

I think the criminal justice system is so broken that just about any 'small-change' case decided for the accused feels something like a victory to me.

I'd feel a heck of a lot more agreeable about some folks like LL going to jail or even trial if, for instance, people like me (or in my socioeconomic status, I should say, I don't knowingly commit crimes) who are committing serious, heinous crimes were even charged.

The seizure issue for drug crimes, a drug arrest of any sort forbidding needy people from getting either student loans or pell grants, people losing autos and houses because of the financial crisis, these boter me tremendously.

I'm talking pears and you're talking apples, but we're both discussing fruit, if you will.

I think another way to put it might be this... I wouldn't do what Dillinger did, but I'd feed him and fill up his car with gas. If LL gets off, it gives me hope that joe shmoe can get off, that we don't accept automatically what the police and the prosecutors say.

Some crime gets committed for personal gain, but other crimes are committed because the laws are unjust. A theft case like this is, oh, sketchy to me, just like the police seizing a minivan because dad had a pound of pot in it, even though mom and children didn't know.

Luckily for me, I've seen the situation where the van with 20 pounds of pot didn't get seized for a couple of reasons-- the mom and kids didn't know, the police were state troopers, not DEA agents, and the troopers understood that mom needed that minivan.

Wish it were straightforward.

When I become world optimizer, some time after I run for my district's optimizer, I'll do things differently.

First, we'll definitely have sharks with laser beams. After that, we can work on it...


Bringing Dillinger into this (none / 0) (#71)
by Towanda on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 07:01:47 PM EST

is a tad over the top. Has Lohan waved guns around, robbed banks, been charged with murder?

And yeah, the feds' reaction to Dillinger was a tad over the top, too -- but all on both sides bore responsibility for the deaths of innocent CCC workers. (I feel rather strongly about that, as I once met a descendant.) Dillinger was no Robin Hood, not the best pick for a hero of the Depression era.


Towanda, this isn't dillinger as a hero (none / 0) (#72)
by jeffinalabama on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 08:01:54 PM EST

or a villain. He got more concentrated press coverage than Lohan. It's not WHAT someone is charged, convicted of something, and then vilified in the press for any other action without any attempt at explaining either the guilt or innocence, but THAT one is first charged, convicted, and villified for something, and the system creates a way to do so.

Dillinger's history is important-- his first jail time, for instance, his treatment there. Lohab has been caught for drunk driving. Maybe driving using other substances. the rest is paperwork.

Now, because she's a 'parole violator,' she's possibly subject to a penalty much worse than the alleged crime-- or the misunderstanding now under the scrutiny of the DA and charged by the DA-- means.

I used Dillinger, could have used Bonnie and Clyde, any of the famous bank robbers. Why? they were front-page news.

the system is broken, and the press and potential penalties, including what DIDN'T happen, parole violation, demonstrate the stacked deck. Caging someone is not the first, second, or third answer, in my experience, but it's the first choice of mandatory sentences and the powerful.


: Thanks for the response (none / 0) (#75)
by Towanda on Thu Feb 10, 2011 at 09:29:24 AM EST

but now the logic of the linkage seems even more remote. So it goes, so off I go.

if you aren't interested in (none / 0) (#68)
by Jeralyn on Wed Feb 09, 2011 at 06:26:00 PM EST

Lindsay, please scroll on by and save your comments for posts which are of interest to you. And for someone without interest in her, why the accusations? Have you met her to know she is a "spoiled brat?" And if she's innocent, which presumably she is under the law, why should she take responsibility for this? She has denied stealing the necklace. Please refrain from convicting her -- or anyone-- before guilt is established at trial or by a guilty plea.