Is justice also served for the rich and famous?
Money can buy the best legal counsel, but fame also draws public scrutiny.
from the June 19, 2007 edition
Page 2 of 3
Justice system in the spotlight
Either way, Hilton's scrape with the law gives the public a truer lens on the pressures placed on judges, courts, and jailers when a high-profile case is before them. At stake is public confidence in the justice system, which can take a hit if citizens conclude that different rules apply to celebrities.
"We are such a celebrity-driven society that when a celebrity gets into trouble – whether it's Mel Gibson with an anti-Semitic rant or a Lindsay Lohan or a Paris Hilton for drunk driving – the system itself is put in the spotlight," says Ralph Michael Stein, a professor at Pace University School of Law in White Plains, N.Y. "Once a celebrity is arrested and all the media trucks show up with boom mikes and reporters, courts and judges and police all know they are going to be under the microscope.... I would argue that because of this, most err on the side of too much constraint to prove they are not being preferential."
But the pressure works in different ways, say experts. Most acknowledge that it pays to be wealthy, because rich defendants can afford better legal counsel. But fame is another matter, and it can counteract any advantage of wealth, they say. Zealous prosecutors can dig in, knowing they can make their career by bringing down a famous person.
The nature of the crime and the public's view – positive or negative – of the famous person also play a role in building or eroding that confidence.
"Money can increase your options and sometimes buy you time," says Jean Rosenbluth, a former prosecutor for the US attorney's office in Los Angeles. "But it can't help you escape the evidence.... Look at [actress] Winona Ryder or [home-furnishings maven] Martha Stewart – they had big-money lawyers and both lost their cases."
RSS feed
