Objection, your honor. Assumes facts not in evidence.
This.
Seriously, Uzi. Double-u. Tee. Eff.
I’ve learned not to say “You can’t be serious!” anymore, because a) the Mods always say that I’m accusing someone of trolling, which is for some reason verboten; and b) I’ve learned that sadly, there really are serious people like you in the world, utterly unconcerned with things like basic human decency for criminals, and completely divorced from anything resembling factual reality.
So I won’t say that. But I will say that you lost this argument. Get a grip, and get the fuck over it.
Agreed but it’s not always a lack of marketable skills either.
S.B. (the man that works here with us) received restaurant kitchen training while in prison.
He can cook. He’s not a chef but he is qualified to either do basic short order stuff or work under a chef.
However, there’s very little work in our rural county (which is experiencing a shitty economy right now) for a black man that’s spent the last 3 1/2 years in prison.
He can’t move to Austin or another larger city with greater opportunities because one condition of his parole is that he lives with his parents.
Even if he could get that changed, he doesn’t have the money for rent or deposits or the 100 little things you have to pull together financially when you try to live on your own.
After he was released, the only real help he got besides a free place to live was the old car his brother gave him.
Oh, and his cousin did offer him a job of sorts-he offered to stake him so that he could start selling pounds again. :rolleyes:
I get really frustrated with the attitudes expressed by **Starving Artist **and **Uzi **because there are lots of S.B.'s out there.
They not evil criminals out raping and killing-they’re basically people that fucked up and now can’t get off the treadmill.
Feeding them a substandard diet just exacerbates their problems when released.
And it costs me the tax payer more money in the long run because it’s another stumbling block that can prevent ex-felons becoming permanently employed.
Which means I may very well likely end up paying for them to be incarcerated again.
And on and on and on.
Just saw this gem.
You know the definition of ‘inedible’ is that you can’t eat it, right?
Not that it’s bland or boring or a funny color.
It can’t be eaten.
So if you can’t choke it down not matter how hungry you are or it’s so horrible that it makes you puke, you really aren’t going to get much nutritional value from it, are you?
The soul is an imaginary construct. My brain requires facts which I think you are confusing with the term ‘opinions’.
Except it was a finding of fact by the district court, upheld by the appellate court. They found the food inedible. If you cannot eat food, by its very nature it is insufficiently nutritious. Wrap all the protein, fats, carbohydrates, vitamins, minerals etc in the middle of an unbreakable perspex block and it is still insufficiently nutritious.
Given what you’re feeding it, I’m pretty sure it’s about to starve.
No, they found ‘some’ food was inedible. If none of the food was inedible there would be people starving or showing signs of malnutrition. Did the court indicate that there were people starving or malnourished? If so, I’ll shut up. Again you’re opinion is just that: an opinion.
Read the opinion from the Ninth…
The District Court determined the following:
-
It is a constitutional requirement that prisoners receive “food that is adequate to maintain health.” (Finding of Law)
-
Maricopa County was not meeting this standard (Finding of Fact) - had the Court not determined this, there would have been no need for a remedy.
-
In order to ensure this, Arizona must meet the standards set by the Department of Agriculture (2600-2800 kCal per diem).
-
Defendant’s testimony that the meals were sufficient was not credited (Finding of Fact).
-
Testimony showed the food given to prisoners was “GENERALLY INEDIBLE” (Finding of Fact).
I don’t know what else you want from the court - it flat out finds that Maricopa’s diet was not “adequate to maintain health” and one of the reasons was, despite the claim that sufficient calories were given, testimony showed that the food given was “generally inedible.”
Still “just my opinion”? Or will you now “shut up”?
Evidence that prisoners were actually suffering from starvation and malnutrition? Anyone? Bueller?
Asked and asnwered.
You’re starting to sound like a birther.
The food was inadequate to maintain health. It was generally inedible. These were findings of fact by the District Court. Do you even understand what those are?
WTF do you think malnutrition is other than a diet inadequate to maintain health?
Nobody keeled over dead, did they? Shit, I’d have eaten that food myself. Don’t know what people are complaining about. It’s only a little mold.
I understand quite well. I think Macaroni and Cheese is inedible. Yet many a college student thrives upon it. The court found that the food was inedible. Yet people aren’t starving or suffering from malnutrition.
The prisoners were unhealthy then?
Oh, I get it. The judge says they weren’t getting enough of ‘A’ without which they would be sick. Are they sick? Yes. Why? Because they aren’t getting enough of ‘A’. Interesting argument.
So, A = Healthy group; A-1= Not Healthy group. Observable difference between the two groups? Apparently none, because if there was someone would certainly have provided the evidence of people getting sick or suffering.
Maybe the prisoners were actually getting ‘A’, or maybe ‘A’ as a variable has a wider range than we think to maintain adequate nutrition.
You’re missing the touch of Arpaio genius: he’s managed to make it more expensive in the short run, too. But it’s apparently worth it to teach those prisoners a lesson! That lesson appears to be, “The powerful can do whatever they like to the powerless, as long as they have no remorse.” Judging by Arizona’s violent crime rate, he is teaching it well.
Clearly you don’t understand, then.
That’s not the fucking POINT! :smack: The point is, the diet provided was found–as a matter of FACT–to be nutritionally deficient. Keep moving the goalposts all you want; pretty soon you’ll run out of playable field entirely (as if you already weren’t!).
Now, if that situation had been allowed to continue (most likely by people like YOU, I might add), then yes, people would eventually have become sick, maybe even died. It’s only circumstantially thanks to some enlightened souls working hard on behalf of others, that it didn’t. I thank Og that we live in a nation where the courts generally have a much better grasp on facts, evidence, reason–and above all, of human rights–than do fascistic assholes on the Internet.
I haven’t moved any goal posts. I’ve been stating the same thing over and over again, but people are too moronic to get the point.
Joe has been running his jail for years. It just wasn’t yesterday that he was serving crappy food, he’s been doing it for years. If during that time there were people suffering the affects of malnutrition then someone would have pounced on that and viola, lawsuit.
But the lawsuit wasn’t about that. It was about inedible food and not meeting dietary guidelines as a result. No mention of anyone actually suffering because of it. Not even a comparison to another jail somewhere. Population A has these health issues, Population B doesn’t because they get 2 a meal vs the .14 a meal that Pop A gets.
Sounds like you’re holding out for a peer-reviewed study on the comparative health of Arpaio’s prisoners to some other population of prisoners who have not been the subjects of a court order to step up the quality of the nutrition program, yes?
Hey, luci, how would you feel about asking the mods to insert Uzi’s name after Joe’s in the thread title?