You are an appellate court judge. Before you is the case of Justin Starman, the first-round draft choice of the local NFL team, who was arrested for reckless driving at 2 a. m. Starman, who has had a long history of battles with the law, was already under a probation order forbidding any misbehavior and imposing an 11 p. m. curfew. The sentencing judge sentenced Starman to 45 days in county jail, reminding him that he had been warned against any further violations and it had been made clear that violating the conditions of probation would not be tolerated. The day he arrived in jail, however, the county sheriff signed orders allowing him to serve 40 days of home confinement and electronic monitoring. Starman would be allowed to attend training camp so he would not miss the season. When the news media got hold of the story, there was a public outcry, the home confinement order was withdrawn, and Starman was ordered to report to jail. Starman’s lawyers have filed an emergency appeal, asking you, the appellate court judge, to grant him relief and suggesting: (a) that the original sentence was overly harsh and (b) the withdrawal of the house arrest order solely because of media attention was a violation of his due process rights. Write an essay on how you would deal with the case. In your paper, address whether you think Starman should be jailed for his behavior or believe, along with the sheriff, that more appropriate, alternative sanctions are available. In formulating your answer, you may want to refer to the sections on alternative sanctions. You may also want to address these issues: Would it be fair to give a celebrity a lenient sentence so they can attend football camp while indigent people go to jail for much the same crime? How would the public be served by putting Starman in jail and jeopardizing his career?