and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to

Paris Hilton has been sentenced to 45 days in prison for violating her probation terms. She won't be able to choose her prison, there will be no work releases, electronic monitoring or any other concessions. Just a plain old jail with an hour outside her cell each day. Her mother thought the sentence was 'pathetic and disgusting' and her lawyer was 'shocked and surprised' by it. Why is that? What exactly did they expect when Paris kept breaking the law? Is she special in that regard?

If one disobeys the law one can expect retribution. What is the point of having laws which some people ignore or which only work with some types but not others? If the law is not applicable to all, can we expect it to work to society's benefit when we want it to do so? If we give no respect to the law we are actually condoning a lawless society and one dreads to think of the consequences of that. The law can only be effective if it is taken seriously, treated with respect and applied to everyone, whether rich or poor, high or low, famous or unknown. If those three elements are not in place, judges and lawyers might as well pack up and go home.

There are four reasons why this is a just sentence. First, Hilton was caught for alcohol-related reckless driving in 2006, and reckless driving costs lives. Simple and unequivocal. She could have killed someone in her state. She was given 36 months probation, $1500 in fines and mandatory alcohol education. All of which she accepted, especially reporting for enrolment in the education programme. Yet she never did enrol and, worse still, she took to driving again and was stopped twice by police when she was not even supposed to be in her car! She said she didn't know she was banned! Wow!

The Responsibilities of Being Celebrity
Second, Hilton is a celebrity role model, whether she acknowledges that or not. Millions of teens and other women across the world who look up to her would be watching, and even emulating, what she does. Flouting the law is not behaviour to inspire, or even reassure, such fans and followers, neither can she be allowed to disregard her probation by placing herself above it.

Third, for the law to work effectively, its application has to be consistent and perceived to be fair, no matter what the actual reality says. By ignoring whatever Hilton does in her case, a strong message of bias would be sent out to the general public regarding favoured people and their ability to ignore the law. The effect of that kind of action on others who are similarly sentenced would be disastrous, for upholding the law, for respect of it or instilling a sense of fairness in its jurisdiction. Worse of all, it would weaken the legitimacy of that law.

Finally, no one is above the law. Ignoring her actions would have encouraged others to do the same, especially when there are many people caught daily drinking and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to

benefit when we want it to do so? If we give no respect to the law we are actually condoning a lawless society and one dreads to think of the consequences of that. The law can only be effective if it is taken seriously, treated with respect and applied to everyone, whether rich or poor, high or low, famous or unknown. If those three elements are not in place, judges and lawyers might as well pack up and go home.

There are four reasons why this is a just sentence. First, Hilton was caught for alcohol-related reckless driving in 2006, and reckless driving costs lives. Simple and unequivocal. She could have killed someone in her state. She was given 36 months probation, $1500 in fines and mandatory alcohol education. All of which she accepted, especially reporting for enrolment in the education programme. Yet she never did enrol and, worse still, she took to driving again and was stopped twice by police when she was not even supposed to be in her car! She said she didn't know she was banned! Wow!

The Responsibilities of Being Celebrity
Second, Hilton is a celebrity role model, whether she acknowledges that or not. Millions of teens and other women across the world who look up to her would be watching, and even emulating, what she does. Flouting the law is not behaviour to inspire, or even reassure, such fans and followers, neither can she be allowed to disregard her probation by placing herself above it.

Third, for the law to work effectively, its application has to be consistent and perceived to be fair, no matter what the actual reality says. By ignoring whatever Hilton does in her case, a strong message of bias would be sent out to the general public regarding favoured people and their ability to ignore the law. The effect of that kind of action on others who are similarly sentenced would be disastrous, for upholding the law, for respect of it or instilling a sense of fairness in its jurisdiction. Worse of all, it would weaken the legitimacy of that law.

Finally, no one is above the law. Ignoring her actions would have encouraged others to do the same, especially when there are many people caught daily drinking and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to

All of which she accepted, especially reporting for enrolment in the education programme. Yet she never did enrol and, worse still, she took to driving again and was stopped twice by police when she was not even supposed to be in her car! She said she didn't know she was banned! Wow!

The Responsibilities of Being Celebrity
Second, Hilton is a celebrity role model, whether she acknowledges that or not. Millions of teens and other women across the world who look up to her would be watching, and even emulating, what she does. Flouting the law is not behaviour to inspire, or even reassure, such fans and followers, neither can she be allowed to disregard her probation by placing herself above it.

Third, for the law to work effectively, its application has to be consistent and perceived to be fair, no matter what the actual reality says. By ignoring whatever Hilton does in her case, a strong message of bias would be sent out to the general public regarding favoured people and their ability to ignore the law. The effect of that kind of action on others who are similarly sentenced would be disastrous, for upholding the law, for respect of it or instilling a sense of fairness in its jurisdiction. Worse of all, it would weaken the legitimacy of that law.

Finally, no one is above the law. Ignoring her actions would have encouraged others to do the same, especially when there are many people caught daily drinking and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to

for the law to work effectively, its application has to be consistent and perceived to be fair, no matter what the actual reality says. By ignoring whatever Hilton does in her case, a strong message of bias would be sent out to the general public regarding favoured people and their ability to ignore the law. The effect of that kind of action on others who are similarly sentenced would be disastrous, for upholding the law, for respect of it or instilling a sense of fairness in its jurisdiction. Worse of all, it would weaken the legitimacy of that law.

Finally, no one is above the law. Ignoring her actions would have encouraged others to do the same, especially when there are many people caught daily drinking and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to

and driving. How would such similar resistance by the public have been contained if it got out of hand? If a celebrity is going to behave as if a legal ruling doesn't apply to her then she must be prepared to take the consequences. One cannot flout the law then expect any mercy because the very act of doing as one pleases is to put one's self outside of its orbit. And if the law ceases to apply to our lives, what kind of state are we heading for?

At least one thing will come out of this. All those on similar probation who might be tempted to do the same will probably think again if they don't want to go to prison. Well done, Judge Sauer! Common sense is beginning to rule at last! There really should be no appeal to waste taxpayer's money any further.