I don’t know that “many likely innocent” people are there, although it’s true that there are some unconvicted people there. But while you may be right that conditions there may result in hate for the system on the part of either innocent or even guilty people being held there, I don’t think the likely response to that hate is going to be to go out and commit crimes that are going to result in their being sent back there. I think the more likely response is going to be “I’ll be damned if I’ll let those fucking assholes get their hands on me again!” They’ll probably complain loudly and bitterly to their friends and family about it too, which will likely result in even greater law abiding on their part as well.
All in all, I think the percentage of innocent inmates at Arpaio’s jail is pretty small. Plus, like I’ve said before, we already do a number on anyone who gets jailed prior to trial. We rob them and their families of their income and maybe cost them their job. We perhaps ruin their reputation. We cost them a ton of money in court costs and bail. And we keep them locked up in cells, not only depriving them of their freedom but forcing them to live two up in a cell the size of most people’s bathrooms with some pretty unsavory characters.
So when you consider all that we already inflict upon anyone who gets arrested and charged with a crime, I think the additional irritations of Arpaio’s jail are just that - irritations - and that in terms of having any particularly harmful effect that the other consequences of being arrested don’t already engender, they are actually pretty benign despite their effectiveness.
There have been two anecdotes in this thread concerning people who’ve actually spent time in Arpaio’s jail, and the overwhelming sentiment on both their parts has been they damn well don’t want to go back. And that’s what Arpaio’s shooting for. Either begin to obey the law, like my friend began to do or move to another jurisdiction like the other guy who apparently has mental issues that compel him to break the law but who is still lucid enough to undertake moving to another county so as to avoid Arpaio’s jail. In both cases a strong desire not to go back again seemed to be the overriding emotion that the people involved took away from their experience there, and I doubt very much that their reaction was much outside the norm.
I know I shouldn’t bother, and I know this sempiternal question is raised every time you make these stupid fucking assertions of yours but… HOW THE FUCK WOULD YOU KNOW ? Have you actually looked into it ? Read papers published by people who did ? Pored upon statistics and findings ? Or is it, once again, just some utterly baseless gut feeling of yours pulled straight out of the “comfortable fictions and points of blind faith” drawer of your arse ?
Oh, they’re probably guilty. Except when they’re middle aged white male football coaches. Then, it’s the little boy’s fault for being such a tempting morsel.
Around here the jails are pretty shitty, though it’s more from overcrowding and neglect than Arpaio’s active cruelty. What’s more, the courts are so backed up that it’s a minimum of several months before you’re likely to go to trial after you’ve been arrested, and it can easily be a year or more if the prosecutors want it that way.
According to two friends of mine who were public defenders, the prosecutors use this to their advantage. If the state had a completely shitty case or if clear procedural errors had been made by the cops against someone who couldn’t come up with bail, they’d offer a plea deal with just enough time to qualify for the actual prison system (say, 15 months) where at least there’s an exercise yard, a little variety in the food, and at least a tiny bit of mental stimulation. Even if their clients were completely innocent (which they agreed wasn’t common, but it happened) or the case was truly egregiously bad and a trial victory was almost guaranteed (which was appallingly common), they just about had to recommend it.
The net result, they say, is that prosecutors and police have become extremely lax and sloppy in their execution, knowing full well that if they screw things up or don’t make a case they can just threaten to drag things out until a plea deal looks good. Really, they don’t even have to threaten–my friends said that this is such an ingrained part of the system that they rarely even stopped to think about it anymore.
So the lousy jails and the crowded courts directly contribute to a system where rights are routinely violated and even truly innocent people have little incentive to have their day in court. I’d be surprised if this weren’t the case in Arpaio’s jurisdiction as well.
Actually, if punitive rather than rehabilitatory measures are less effective, then punishing prisoners will demonstrate less empathy for future victims. A self perpetuating cycle would occur and punishment would merely be used as a method of appeasement. That’s why you have to back up your argument with facts, rather than assumptions about motivation.
Besides, there are often demonstrations against the death penalty from the family of murder victims.
No but see, a handful of cursory anecdotes are sufficient proof if it confirms your prejudices. However, exhaustive statistical data (that is to say, the sum total of all recorded anecdotes) is not conclusive if it goes against your starting assumption, and can be ignored. Well, starting conclusion really.
That’s how the scientific method works at its most basic, I’m surprised you don’t know that.
Personally, I’m picturing SA as a superhero, poised in front of a fluttering US flag. Defender of downtrodden kiddie rapists, protector of sadistic sheriffs, etc. Paper towel tubes adorn the picture. Cue America The Beautiful.
Joe Arpaio is The King Douche-Fucking-Bag, and that’s not the scary part. The scary part is the number of people that support him. A regular Army Of Fucking Douchebags.
Last time I checked, moldy bread is not only not “adequately nutritious”, but it’s also potentially lethal. And didn’t he also serve lunch meat with mold on it as well?
And finally, a question: why was it so important to you that people not judge Sandusky guilty until he had his day in court, that he was entitled to presumption of innocence, and it was all a witch hunt – but now, apparently it’s okay to judge people in these jails guilty? Sandusky deserved his day in court – but these people apparently are guilty as charged, and deserve to be treated like animals. You didn’t care about Sandusky’s victims – you were more worried about his and Paterno’s lives being ruined by false accusations. (If you ask me, child molestors and those who enable them are even WORSE than murderers)
So which is it? You can’t have it both ways, Starving Artist. Pink underwear, meh, I don’t care about that. Suffering in a heat wave, eating food that could kill someone, etc – yeah, that’s “cruel and unusual punishment”. (Besides, if you ask me, I feel uneasy with prisoners living outside a jail cell in a tent. I don’t care how secure they claim it is – I’d rather they be inside)
You mean after all this time you still can’t get straight what I was saying in the Paterno thread? I never said not to judge Sandusky till he had his day in court; I said not to judge Paterno and Penn State without evidence. I did say Sandusky was entitled to due process, but that’s a no-brainer - everyone is, even Sirhan Sirhan and Charles Manson.
And since no one has died from the bread and/or the heat, your preference may stand but it lacks foundation in consequence. Plus Arpaio’s prisoners at least have the advantage of floor-to-ceiling views and ventilation. Lots of prisoners swelter in stifling heat and dead, unmoving air inside cells in unair-conditioned prisons in southern and great plains prisons, where the temps probably approach those of Arpaio’s jail when you factor in hot metal roofs and thousands of prisoners each throwing off body heat.
But again, there’s a simple solution: Don’t. Break. The. Law. … and it ain’t a problem!
This is a big lesson guests at Arpaio’s jail learn. If they don’t break the law once they’re out, they won’t ever have to come back again. See how that works? Easy, peasy!
You said there were only two anecdotes presented in the thread. Why don’t you inclde the three documented names of inmates who were awarded large restitution payments for ending up dead due to the negligence of Arpaio’s deputies? Seems like you are cherry picking your anecdotes.
Shocking. Absolutely shocking that you only hear what you want to. What a total surprise. You will have to peel me up off the floor.
What about 'em? Anywhere else and they’re still yanked away from their families who often are left either with no or reduced means of support; they lose income and perhaps their jobs; they have to spend tons of money on bail and lawyers, and they lose their freedom. They’re told when to go to bed, when to get up, when and what to eat, and generally they have to sit in a room the size of your bathroom all day with another guy who probably isn’t all that sparkling a bunkmate.
Given all that, I fear moldy bread pales in comparison. In other words, I suspect that if you were to ask the average bear which, if they absolutely had to choose, which would be their choice, to find themselves in the situation I described above, or to eat moldy bread?
Again, why do you people so unthinking accept the many much more serious penalties arrestees are routinely subject to without complaint, but hurl yourselves into high dudgeon over Sheriff Joe’s relatively minor additional annoyances? As I’ve said before I think it all boils down to politics. Sheriff Joe’s a right wing authority figure who attempts to be tough on crime and criminals and is therefore a walking, talking liberal hot-button. You aren’t really concerned about loss of rights and dignity and about suffering; those abound in jails all over this country. You just don’t like it that a right-winger is trying to be even tougher on crime than is the standard practice elsewhere even though his tactics are mere irritations, and you give yourself away by your uncomplaining acceptance of standard conditions of arrest and bail/confinement prior to trial.
You said there were only two anecdotes in the thread about people who will never commit crimes again after being in Arpaio’s jails. Why didn’t you include the three dead people I referenced who will never commit crimes again after being in Arpaio’s jails? With your standard of truth, you could claim those deaths as supporting your point that Sheriff Joe is lowering the crime rate.