Funny thing on a board where the goal is fighting ignorance asking to see some actual evidence rather than just assumptions. Stupid me.
http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/07/23/arpaio-sued-for-detainee-mistreatment-and-death/
Hey, guess what, there’s your lawsuit.
The court decision found that the food was inadequate. It hardly requires a cite to say that inadequate nutrition eventually leads to malnutrition, does it? Is that what you’re asking for? How long does a person have to be fed an inadequate diet before you’ll say “OK, that’s actually suffering”? A week? 6 months? 5 years? Or does somebody actually have to die of rickets or scurvy or food poisoning before you can say it’s been demonstrated that it’s “actually suffering”? And at which point it’s clear that something should have been done long before? That’s what the court has already done; admonished Arpaio hopefully before somebody died of his mistreatment. Except if you ask McClurg’s family, it was in fact too late.
Okay, you’ve got a lawsuit that says someone with a pre-existing condition didn’t get the food they needed: Assuming the food they could have gotten somewhere else would have been sufficient to avoid the issue and assuming that if he had remained on the outside he wouldn’t have suffered the same fate.
Cases of food poisoning. Most food poisoning doesn’t end up in death. You’d have to compare it with other locations to ensure that it is worse than average. Or are you saying that no cases of food poisoning should ever occur? I can’t imagine any cafeteria with that sort of track record.
Someone who has early signs of scurvy? I assume that when you get scurvy you don’t drop dead instantly.
It was said earlier that the courts provide oversight to the jail system. Why don’t they do some of these studies then rather than just respond to adhoc court cases.
Or namby-pamby conservatives, for that matter. There’s a lot of Republicans who think Arpaio’s just a media whore.
Now try to find someone who will hire a reformed convict in a crappy economy. As far as I can tell all my ex-con co-workers were all hired before the economy tanked.
That’s the thing. Even in a good economy it’s hell trying to find a job if you’ve been behind bars. I can’t imagine now.
Wouldn’t be fair. Joe Arapaio is a fact, a verifiable mean sumbitch who is on record as doing rotten shit to helpless people, presumably because he likes to. Joe is certified, the genuine article. Uzi is simply a dancing vortex of very negative electrons. I doubt he’s actually guilty of anything much .
Unless those rumors of nieghborhood pets disappearing are true, but I don’t really believe them.
I sell them to Joe. Where do you think he gets his ‘meat’ from?
I kan bee cheezburgger?
I’d make a joke about gangrene, an amputated leg and rotten bologna but that’d be too tasteless even for the pit.
Eh, he probably feeds prisoners meat from the bodies of illegal immigrants. 
Well, inedible anyway.
Then sells his prisoners to Mexico. Soylent Gringo, they call it.
Indeed. That much is quite clear.
You know nothing about courts and judicial opinions, do you? A court doesn’t use inedible in the way you do, or people do in casual conversation. Because you thinking Macaroni and Cheese to be inedible is irrelevant. A federal court finding prisoner food inedible is a very significant thing, and not done based on the sort of bullshit you think it is.
Your argument here is possibly the most stupid thing I have ever read on these boards. It is akin to saying that because you think your friend liking a particular movie is insane, when a court makes a ruling that a defendant is insane, it is commenting on the defendant’s taste in movies.
The evidence of this was the court finding the food inadequate to maintain health. The court found that! You can bullshit around it as much as you want, but the court, with the evidence in front of it, found that. Which yes, means the prisoners were malnourished. Or suffering from malnutrition.
The court found the diet was unhealthy - this is a fucking straight definitional thing.
Malnutrition and starvation are different things. You don’t need to be wandering around like a Belsen victim. You can even be getting sufficient calories and be malnourished. You can put on weight and be malnourished. The court found the diet fed to the prisoners did not meet the required standards for adequate nourishment for semi-active adult men. Not that it wasn’t pretty, or wasn’t tasty, but that it was a diet that led to malnourishment.
Google “case and controversy”, you imbecile. Courts cannot just launch studies, that is not what they are there for.
And yet, they didn’t say that anyone was actually malnourished or suffering from it. Are the courts deliberately being opaque? They could have said that this prisoner ‘Jim’ was suffering. Or Bob, or Bill or whoever.
They said that the diet didn’t meet some arbitrary recommended ‘standard’ for diets that most people don’t get in any case. It doesn’t mean that people were dropping like flies because again and for the umpteenth time, they’d have presented that evidence multiple times over and it would be broadcast to the world by now.
Not even the ones who are supposed to provide oversight as someone mentioned earlier? Not much ability for oversight if true, idjit. And if not them then who does provide oversight and makes sure the policies are followed? Keebler elves?
Aha! “…led to malnourishment…”! Not that it was malnourishment, but a hypothetical malnourishment, which hadn’t yet happened!
It is possible to be malnourished without showing symptoms. The body is in a poor state of health without specific symptoms and has no reserve for extra stress.
Example: A very low intake of Vit. C can be enough to prevent scurvy but if the person suffers a cut, healing can be difficult or non-existent.
The court didn’t need to, shithead. The facts of the case speak for themselves. (Even to you; you just refuse to hear them.)
Don’t be fucking specious. They didn’t. need. to. The question was about the actual nutritional value of the jail’s diet, not to what degree the prisoners had suffered, or even if they had materially suffered at all (even though they verifiably had; see Jenaroph’s link above for only one tiny example).
When courts–or government regulating agencies–decide that there’s too much tar and nicotine in cigarettes or too much carbon monoxide in a particular vehicle model’s emissions, they don’t. fucking. need. to see if anyone ever was or ever will be directly harmed by these contaminants. We know enough about air pollution, tobacco toxicity, and yes, BASIC HUMAN DIETARY REQUIREMENTS to recognize dangers and liabilities on face value.
So knock off the disinegenuous “was anyone ever really HARMED??” bullshit. It’s not getting you anywhere, and you fucking know it.
If you think USDA or Bureau of Prisons or AZ state dietary nutritional guidelines are “arbitrary”, then you’re far more clueless than you appear even here (which is a scary thought). Try eating a diet for a few months that doesn’t meet these “arbitrary” requirements. Then we’ll see how you’ve fared.
No, they wouldn’t have, because that’s NOT. WHAT. THE. CASE. WAS. ABOUT.
Was that too fast? Should I slow down, or use even smaller words? Maybe words with less than one syllable?
We tried that during the Second Anglo-South African War, and it worked well. Johnny Boer was a gentleman even if he didn’t sit down to be shot at, but because of his unfair tactics we had to imprison his womenfolk and the childer. There was a bit of a rocky start, but once the tents were up everything went swimmingly. Obviously there had to be a few deaths which no-one regretted more than ourselves; but in the end we were the best of friends afterwards.
It’s important to provide water, especially in very hot climates. This was a lesson we were slow to learn.
You are understandably confusing unpalatable with inedible. The first is sour-tasting potatoes; the second is rocks.