Star Treatment. Many celebrities are given this luxury and thus they do not have to pay for their mistakes in the ways us commoners often do. This is unfair. Winona Ryder was found guilty last Wednesday of felony grand theft and vandalism concerning the theft of several thousand dollars of goods taken from a Saks Fifth Avenue store late last year. The judge allowed Ryder to remain free on bond and said that she will be sentenced on Dec. 6. It is important that when this sentencing occurs, the judge treats this actress just as he would any other U.S. citizen found guilty of a felony. Star or not, punishments should be apply to all equally, and Ryder should learn her lesson.
Security officers detained Ryder Dec. 12, 2001, as she attempted to leave a Saks Fifth Avenue store in Beverly Hills. The officers reported finding $5,560 worth of stolen goods, including a $760 Marc Jacobs sweater and $80 Donna Karan cashmere socks, inside two shopping bags and a garment bag ("Jury Convicts Winona Ryder on 2 Counts in Shoplifting Case," The New York Times, Nov. 6, 2002).
Ryder tried to excuse her behavior by saying she was doing research for a future role. Sure, a role that required thousands of dollars of new clothes and accessories. The defense also attempted to portray Ryder as the wronged party in the whole ordeal, claiming that she was victimized by prejudiced security guards that manhandled the star during questioning. Luckily, the prosecution did not back down, and continued to pursue the case as a "simple case of theft" ("Winona Guilty!" eonline.com, Nov. 6, 2002). The case should be treated just so. Celebrities are not outside the law and they need to be reminded of this.
Unfortunately, star status cannot be completely ignored, because the public is nosy. The press has noted the general public's interest in prying into other people's lives -- hence reality television shows and tabloid magazines. As long as the public supplies interest, the press will provide insights into other people's lives, with the most accessible ones being those of stars.
Despite the elections, which took place on the same day as the trial, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and many other channels switched to live coverage of the verdict and its aftermath. This coverage certainly does not encourage the unbiased aim of the trial, and the media should avoid doing this in future celebrity trials unless the outcome will directly affect the public, as the Ryder case clearly does not. Whether she walks free, is given a hefty fine, or sentenced to jail time, our daily lives continue and Winona Ryder will remain labelled a "star."
It could be argued that stars suffer so much invasion into their private lives that they are warranted special treatment in return. This is absurd. In choosing to become famous these people understand that they will spend the rest of their lives in the public eye and that privacy is highly unlikely. They strive for fame through their countless acting/modeling jobs, attendance at social functions, and numerous interviews. Once this fame is attained, it must be sustained through constantly supplying the fans with more interesting little insights into their favorite stars' lives. It is a give and take. We give them fame, they feed our interests.
Deputy District Attorney Ann Rundle commented on the equality of the case at hand, stating: "I'm very happy to see that the jury system works no matter who the defendant is." The DA's office also issued a statement reassuring the general public that justice is in fact blind ("Ryder Guilty of Theft," The Washington Post, Nov. 7, 2002). Justice was not so entirely blind as the Defense would lead us to think. The prosecution intends to ask for probation, community service and restitution of the $5,000 worth of clothing and accessories that Ryder took last December. Jail time has already been ruled out, for unexplained reasons, and this may not have been the case had the accusations come up against an ordinary citizen. Ryder is being charged with a felony, that normally provides grounds for jail time and she should not be exempted from normal consideration. Famous or not, Ryder must face up to her crime and learn to take responsibility for her actions through being sentenced in the same manner as regular people have been in the past, or would be now given common protocol.
Ryder will remain free on bond until her sentencing on Dec. 6 at which point she could receive anything from probation to three years behind bars. The judge should then remember that Ryder went into the store wielding empty shopping bags and a pair of scissors. She was then spied clipping security sensors off garments in one of the dressing rooms. Any common citizen would, no doubt, be harshly punishment for such intended grand theft and vandalism. Ryder's stardom should be overlooked and her actions need to be reprimanded.
Think back to O.J. Simpson. His case was highly publicized and his fame grew tenfold because of it. With teams of evidence pointing the guilty finger, Simpson was still acquitted and now walks around an innocent man. This may not have been the case had the trial been of an ordinary man with no claims to fame and no need for public viewing of the trial. Now with Ryder, the jury seems to have mostly discounted her stardom in punishing her outlandish acts, yet there is noted lenience in her punishment options through lack of a jail time option. We have made some progress, but not enough.
When famous people commit crimes, they should be brought down to our level. There is nothing star-studded or glamorous about stealing. It should not be publicized and stars should not gain fame via news coverage of their misdeeds. When Ryder is sentenced on Dec. 6, she should be suffering from the consequences of her misdeeds, not signing autographs for them.
(Alex Roosenburg's column appears Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at aroosenburg@
cavalierdaily.com.)
Read More
EDITORIAL: Collectives are a misinterpretation of the mission of NIL
By Editorial Board | YesterdayA large driver of this inequality comes in the form of collectives, the structures many schools use to organize their NIL payments.
CARTER: Data science without sustainability is insufficient
By Nathaniel Carter | 4 days agoThe University appears committed to a future defined by data, but lacks the dedication to meeting this future’s energy needs in a sustainable way.
SULLIVAN: Gov. Youngkin purges integrity from voter registration process
By Scarlett Sullivan | 6 days agoYoungkin once again abandoned his duty to protect Virginian voters’ rights, setting a dangerous precedent for elections.
