My sister in law posted this today:
This was our exchange:
I think I am going to start having to seriously make an effort to ignore people on FB.
Some of your details are a little off the mark, but I’ll go along with ‘He sounds like a jerk with too much power and an agenda.’ If all he was doing was running an efficient jail the argument would be much different.
Which details are those?
I believe the chain gangs are voluntary, and there are plenty of volunteers because it beats sitting in a tent in the sun all day. The pink underwear was started to keep the men from leaving the jail with the issued underwear on. Some of the cost saving steps are common in other jails. None of that makes up for the numerous violations of rights and his abuse of the system.
Thanks for clearing that up. But according to his wiki page (which isn’t the bastion of legitimacy I know, but the best I could find) he isn’t using the pink underwear as a theft deterrent at all. He likes the attention it gets him.
Man is a real piece of work. What an a-hole. I am surprised he hasn’t tried running for President. It doesn’t say the adult male chain gangs are volunteer, just the female and juvenile ones. Do you have a cite that clarifies how adult male chain gangs work?
Thank you so much for your FB update. We sincerely care about the stupid bullshit you and your FB buddies post on FB. I think you should tell everyone on FB about this FB update as I am sure they will want to know as much as we do.
Nothing wrong with basic prison orange, lime green, or some other more neutral but obvious color. The cost savings were probably a factor, but a deliberate attempt to unnecessarily demean the prisoners was almost certainly part of the appeal.
The man’s a douchebag, at best.
It’s a PIT thread asshole. Go to Great Debates if you want a less FB heavy discussion. Good day, moron.
And if **April R ** said she’d had this conversation by email, would you still be a jerk about it?
eta: Beaten to the punch!
We don’t enjoy watching them suffer, we feel good knowing that these criminals are being punished for what they have done… and being punished efficiently. Also, the more harsh the punishment the less people that are going to be repeat offenders. Furthermore, I’ve had to work outside in over 100 degree weather in jeans, t-shirt, safety vest, and a hard hat for 12 or more hours a day 5 days a week… their punishment isn’t so harsh, watch “Locked Up” on the history channel other prisons are much worse.
Ah. This would explain it:
Is this substantiated by any statistics coming out of Arpaio’s district? If punishment for crime was a deterrent we wouldn’t have over populated prisons.
Death is the only deterrent to recidivism.
Prisoners are sleeping in tents when it’s over 100 degrees out and people are actually concerned that they have to wear pink underwear?
Really, that’s a dire violation of human rights? I’d be more concerned that he’s feeding people for .20 a meal. Other than that, I’m not feeling the outrage. Certainly it’s not a fun place to be and the dude may be a power abusing douche bag, but it is a prison. Seems to me cable and porn and gym equipment are luxuries.
Thank you so much for yet another in a long line of retarded posts. Consistency is an underappreciated virtue.
Actually, a jail not a prison. You do know there is a difference, right? As in jails are for misdemeanors or short-term incarceration while awaiting transfer to a proper prison, not for long-term handling of hardcore felons?
Beyond that, even in prisons, the purpose of some of those things (and porn isn’t a usual thing, even in prison) isn’t to make it comfortable for inmates but to keep them from going “Lord of the Flies” and making a rotten job harder for the guards.
The pink underwear was just one thing, but the man has a habit of unnecessarily making things harder for his charges if not outright violating human rights. It’s sadistic, at best, which is not what you want to see in a man who is, in theory, impartial.
So what’s the recidivism rate of Maricopa County versus other Arizona counties? Or the country at large?
The hell of it is people don’t want to see someone who’s impartial, they want to see someone giving criminals hell.
Because after all, if you’re in jail you must deserve whatever you get, right?
Arpaio is correct. If more of our jails were run this way we’d have a lower rate of recidivism. We’d be spending less tax money too. Win.
Caution: Anecdotal evidence which doesn’t prove anything ensues:
Good friend, moved to Arizona a few years ago. Female, highly paid exec in the health care business. Got picked up DUI coming home from a party one night, got to spend a month on work release in Sheriff Joe’s tent city. Came to visit over Thanksgiving. We went to dinner at an Italian spot four blocks from where I live and I drove her rental car home because she was too scared to drive after having had one glass of wine. This woman has been a gregarious and confident drinker and driver all her life and wouldn’t listen to anyone who tried to get her not to drive after she’d been drinking. Now she won’t drive after one little glass of restaurant wine, and in a state not Arizona to boot.
Thanks, Sheriff Joe! 
With regard to the poor guy who’d committed a crime serious enough to get sentenced to twelve years even in today’s court system, it’s my understanding that Arpaio runs a jail, not a prison, and that inmates held there are held pending trial or to serve sentences of one year or less. Is that not the case here, or is this inmate’s complaint fiction?
I’m not going to argue the details of running an efficient jail. The guy’s at least a douchebag so that’s the problem, not pink underwear.
If we get a Pit thread about every stupid thing everyone reads on Facebook (which we seem to be getting from you) the Pit will get very busy. And stupid.