The bottom line is, you don't either:
1. understand the probation process, and how the process itself led to Paris getting the amount of jail time she got, because you keep bringing up the argument that her original charge is irrelevent. If you understood the probation process, you would see why she got what she got, and quit looking like a dumbass by saying the original charge was irrelevent.
or
2. you don't have the intellect to comprehend the fact that despite whether or not Paris is a threat to society before or after she got stopped, the courts see this as a probation violation, therefore she is subject to the penalties of a probation violation. See if you can understand this: as part of her sentencing, her license was taken away. She was put on probation. During probation, a person is ordered to stay out of trouble during this probation period. If that person does get themselves into trouble, the judge comes down hard on them because that person violated their probation.
Paris license was suspended as a result of her DUI. She was on probation as a direct result of her DUI. She drove with a suspended license. She broke her probation. She fucked up two stipulations of the court that originated from her DUI.
So she's not sitting in jail because of the "driving under suspension" charge. She's sitting in jail because she got the "driving under suspension" charge while on probation for DUI.
Does that make sense to you now? Can your 3 brain cells grasp this like everyone else easily can? You say that her original offense was irrelevant in gauging how much of a threat to society she CURRENTLY poses. Irrelevent in what manner? Because from a legal point of view, you have it backwards...how much of a threat she currently poses is irrelevent, and her original offense is where the jail time is coming from.
So call me a douche all you want. Coming from a dumbass who doesn't have the intellect to grasp something as simple as how the probation process works, anything you say to me doesn't have much value.