Celebrities: Does the Punishment Really Fit the Crime?

There is a double standard when it comes to the laws of the United States and their enforcement. Celebrities and public figures have a different set of punishments when they commit the very same crimes. It doesn't make any sense that a regular, middle-class member of society can break the law, receive adequate representation and be held accountable to the full extent of the law, while a well-known figure can perform the same wrong act, hire the most expensive lawyer and get off for a small fraction of the punishment, if anything at all.

Michael Vick is the latest celebrity to have been accused of a crime. Like many of the allegations surrounding a well-known entity, they seem insurmountable when the news first breaks. You think "oh, they are so guilty. How could they possibly be found innocent?" But the process begins and by the end, they have worked their way to a diminished sentence or fine - an overcome that would never happen to your neighbor, unless you live in Hollywood.

We saw this double standard with O.J. Simpson as well. Any other person in that situation would be in prison for the rest of their lives, no questions asked. My theory is this whole idea of celebrities getting off easy when it comes to law enforcement is tied in with the media and advertising. A famous person breaks the law. The police have to do something because they are here to protect and serve as their slogan goes. So Mr.Famous is accused and taken in. Now, Hollywood and the media love when this happens because it gives the news a big kick. Everyone wants to watch the news or read the paper or even google Mr.Famous to find out all the juicy gossip about the accusation(s).

The media drives the country and these scenarios are no different. Now, Entertainment Tonight, Star Weekly and blogs everywhere are working overtime to get all the dirt about Mr.Famous. That extra burst in viewers or readership leads to more revenue from advertisers and higher ratings for the week. More revenue leads to more coverage for Mr.Famous and the next Mrs.Celebrity that will have a breaking story. The media does not want Mr.Famous to go to jail for any extended amount of time (a Paris Hilton amount of time is acceptable because they can do daily updates) because him sitting in jail isn't a story anymore. Year 4 of a 20 year sentence isn't newsworthy. Mr.Famous making license plates and doing the laundry for the 41st day in a row won't cut it for the National Enquirer. But, if he has only a short amount of time in jail, by the time the media covers the transition to prison and his experience there, it's time to prepare for his release. It's pretty ingenious if you think about it. The media also gets to cover Mr.Famous and his "road to recovery" when he rejoins society and tries to "make sense of his life" by jumping into a prominent movie role or launch a new album, paying him far more than before breaking the law because his name is hot and will garner attention from the masses. Mr.Famous is not hindered by the situation either (see Martha Stewart). He has received all this media coverage for free (well, maybe a fine or other slap on the wrist) and will come out the other side better than when he went in.

You can try to argue that having the best legal council will do wonders for your case outcome, but I find that hard to believe. This whole premise implies that these cases, like O.J. or Vick or countless others are far more complicated than a regular trial in any town, USA. That is completely false. These cases are the same. Facts are collected and examined, but the media has to give the perception that it could go either way to build suspense, almost like it's a movie for all to watch. 95% of lawyers could easily prove these celebrities are guilty, but again, what would be exciting about Mr.Famous being locked up and out of the public eye for a number of years? The media runs the country, it is just sad that Nielson ratings and copies sold are more important than an upstanding justice system.