Joe Arpaio

[Starving_Artist]

Oh, she is definitely self-centered! Probably the most self-centered person I’ve known in my entire life.

But Morganstern’s was that she wasn’t smart if she drank and drove, and that’s what I was contesting.

She’s a very caring person despite her self-centeredness though. Her concern for others is why she went into nursing to begin with. She cares for people and she cares for animals. She just doesn’t think she ever drinks enough that she can’t drive properly.

And I’ve got to admit she can hold her liquor. In all the years I’ve known her I’ve only seen her noticeably drunk one time, and that was after half a bottle of Absinthe which she won’t touch now. (Girl does learn her lessons. ;))

She always remembers everything, and she wakes up and gets up at 7:00 a.m. no matter how late she was up or how much she’s had to drink. And she never gets hangovers. It really pisses me off.

So her belief that she can handle a car after a few drinks isn’t without some foundation. Plus we grew up in an era when drinking and driving wasn’t taken as seriously as it is now and she probably has some of that mindset left.

Still, it’s unquestionably dangerous to drink and drive and it’s good that she’s learned her lesson. But it took Sheriff Joe to do the trick, and now a year later and in a state not Arizona she still won’t get behind the wheel even after as little as one small glass of restaurant wine.

[VinylTurnip]

Fascinating. Do go on!

[Kobal2]

@Starving_Artist

In my opinion it’s primarily because we don’t have the same societal difficulties. If Norway had the same proportion of disaffected and economically disadvantaged minority groups

Are you under the impression that Norway is free of ethno-social minorities and doesn’t have an economic bottom rung ?

drug and gang activity

They do. There are drugs everywhere, and where there are drugs there are gangs. They also can boast neo-nazis (those paragons of thinking things through & amending their ways) and quite a few “outlaw” MC charters, including their home grown chapter of the Hell’s Angels.

(it’s my impression that people in European countries are considerably more restricted by their governments as to how they’re allowed to behave than we are here in the U.S.)

And of course your impression is based on extensive familiarity with the vast breadth of European cultures and societies, gleaned through your extensive travels and conversations with the locals ?
BTW, Norway is not a part of Europe. So, there’s that, too.

In my opinion our recidivism rate is due more to the fact that most criminals go right back into the same environment and the same activities they were in before they went to prison,

Yes, yes I do believe that would be the definition of re-offending, yes. The first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club, after all. But do tell what magical pixie dust is, in your opinion, sprayed upon Norwegian prisoners that eases their economic woes and drastically alters their environment while they’re in the can.

and I believe Arpaio’s approach is far more likely to stay with former inmates and make them want to go straight more than would treating them as they would be treated in Norway.

And yet Arpaio’s county boasts the worst re-offending stats in the whole State. Funny how that works, huh ?

Sorry, but the one doesn’t follow the other. The fact we can’t undo the one doesn’t mean we can keep more from happening in the future. The purpose of prison is and always has been punishment.

No, it’s not. It can be one of the purposes of a prison system, but it’s not the purpose of prison. For reminder, the four main purposes of prisons are: segregation, retribution, deterrence and treatment. None of which are superior or more valid than the others.
(also, other reminder: Arpaio DOESN’T RUN A PRISON. He runs a jail. He doesn’t hold Al Capone, Son of Sam and the Piru Bloods)

But there is no way that any prison can “make sure” a criminal doesn’t commit another crime. Especially not when the criminal is going to go right back to the same neighborhood and the same associates and the same activities and the same culture he was in when he went to jail in the first place.

Again, maybe you can reveal the formula of the Norwegian pixie dust that prevents its ex-cons from doing just so.

No, I’m advocating that we adopt unpleasant yet **humane **policies similar to Arpaio’s

(emph. mine) You don’t know what the word means, do you ?

which have the result of making inmates actively desirous of staying out of jail because it’s so unpleasant and humiliating rather than merely something to be endured as a cost of doing business in the event one gets caught.

And yet, again, Arpaio’s system doesn’t boast better results than other jails in America OR in Arizona. Nevermind Norway.
Beyond that, In my experience harsher prison environments only breed more hatred of authority and society in general among inmates. Which many of them didn’t exactly lack in the first place. Treat people like less than animals, and they tend to learn to behave like animals. Of course, most petty offenders already got treated like animals on the outside. That’s why they end up on the inside. But that’s another issue I suppose…

[Starving_Artist]

Well, you hit the nail on the head with your previous post: they don’t have as many brown people in Norway.

The rest of your comments are about as cogent and not worth my time.

[Starving_Artist]

Well, you hit the nail on the head with your previous post: they don’t have as many “BROWN PEOPLE” in Norway. :rolleyes:

The rest of your comments are about as cogent and not worth my time.

[Kobal2]

So at a loss for answers to the gaping holes in your argument, you had to run and cower twice ?

[DianaG]

Meds wore off.

[YogSothoth]

@Starving_Artist

Simply put, those of us who approve of Arpaio’s tactics don’t agree that they needlessly cruel and unusual. They are certainly unpleasant and humiliating but that’s the idea. Arpaio says as much himself. Jails are supposed to be unpleasant places that people should want to avoid being sent to or coming back to.

We’ll see. There might be waffling on the cruelty aspect, but his methods are certainly unusual

@Starving_Artist

As has been mentioned before, we have soldiers in the Middle East living in worse temperatures and carrying full gear in head to toe dress at the same time. His jailers experience the same temperatures and dust storms and so forth that his inmates do.

Irrelevant. Soldiers choose to do that, prisoners get no choice. 120 degrees is objectively too hot to live without reasonable accommodations, and those are not provided

@Starving_Artist

There’s a very simple solution for anyone who doesn’t want to wind up in Arpaio’s jail. I’m sure you know what it is…all together now: DON’T BREAK THE LAW!!!

You forgot the “don’t be born brown” part

@Starving_Artist

As for sawing people’s arms off and so forth: ridiculous. You could make the same argument about imprisonment itself. Why not just toss them in cells and throw away the key? I’m sure there’s a name for this type of fallacy but I can’t be arsed at the moment to look it up. Suffice it to say that just because a person favors a certain type of punishment it’s nonsense to suggest he automatically favors applying it to its utmost extreme in every case.

You are arguing for something that was never asserted, you silly man.

The point isn’t whether or not punishment itself was wrong, the point was whether specific punishments run afoul of laws protecting human rights. I feel it does, you don’t, we’ll have to wait for the courts to decide that.

[Starving_Artist]

@YogSosoth

We’ll see. There might be waffling on the cruelty aspect, but his methods are certainly unusual

Oh, I don’t know. The various lawsuits brought so far haven’t had much success in making that argument. Somehow I think the framers of the Constitution had more in mind than pink underwear and Frank Sinatra music when they prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. (And btw, note the prohibition is against cruel and unusual punishment. I don’t believe unusual alone cuts it.)

@YogSosoth

Irrelevant. Soldiers choose to do that, prisoners get no choice. 120 degrees is objectively too hot to live without reasonable accommodations, and those are not provided

Prisoners in other hot climes live in the similar heat and in enclosed cells. At least Arpaio’s guys have ventilation and open air.

@YogSosoth

You forgot the “don’t be born brown” part

So you’ve chosen the lame route too, eh? Tell ya what chum, how’s about you agree to pay me ten bucks for every non-Hispanic inmate to have been housed in Sheriff Joe’s tent city? Betcha wouldn’t even begin to consider it.

Which of course is completely separate and apart from the fact that Arpaio merely houses inmates sent by the courts. If brown people are sitting in Arpaio’s tents it’s because the justice system has found sufficient reason to send them there…you know, just like they do the white, black, Asian and Indian inmates that wind up there.

Too bad I didn’t notice this before I started answering you or I’d have blown you off like I did Kobal. That argument is simply too stupid and aimed at too simple-minded an audience for me to take seriously.

Consider the rest of your post blown off because it, and you, are.

[Fear_Itself]

Heh. **Yogs **got blown by Starkers.

[Starving_Artist]

He’ll probably find the experience doesn’t live up to what he’s always been led to believe getting blown is like.

[Odesio]

@YogSosoth

Irrelevant. Soldiers choose to do that, prisoners get no choice. 120 degrees is objectively too hot to live without reasonable accommodations, and those are not provided

Do you have some citation to prove that? Provided the inmate has no health problems exacerbated by heat all he or she needs is plenty of water and shade. If they don’t have access to enough water, shade, etc., etc. then I will agree with you. And, believe me, I’m no fan of Arpaio as I don’t think he’s a good guy. I just don’t think the concept of a tent city in Arizona is automatically a bad thing.

[Kobal2]

@Starving_Artist

So you’ve chosen the lame route too, eh? Tell ya what chum, how’s about you agree to pay me ten bucks for every non-Hispanic inmate to have been housed in Sheriff Joe’s tent city? Betcha wouldn’t even begin to consider it.

I’ll take that bet. But *you *have to give me a tenner for each Latino inmate. Deal ? Didn’t think so.

[Larry_Borgia]

This country has certainly reached a sadly fallen state when decent men and women no longer get down on their knees and thank the good lord Jesus Christ that they breathe the same air with such giants as Donald Trump, Joe Arpaio, and Jerry Sandusky.

[gamerunknown]

@Starving_Artist

I’m sure there’s a name for this type of fallacy but I can’t be arsed at the moment to look it up.

Reductio ad absurdum.

@Starving_Artist

Well, you hit the nail on the head with your previous post: they don’t have as many brown people in Norway.

For demographic arguments I like to compare New Zealand (69% white) to the US (72.4% white), to determine whether it’s the stellar good character of white folk to live long and never go back to jail and the discrepancy between the Scandinavian Socialist countries and the US can be ascribed merely to that. As it stands, New Zealand has higher recidivism rates than Norway and may in fact have higher recidivism rates than Arizona (42.4% in Arizona vs. 49% in New Zealand). This news article mentions that 83.8% of prisoners had prior convictions, but presumably sentences are longer for those with convictions and thus they’d be likely to be overrepresented.

@Starving_Artist

(And btw, note the prohibition is against cruel and unusual punishment. I don’t believe unusual alone cuts it.)

I think this is an inclusive or function, where if either or both of the conditions are satisfied, the statement applies.

[DiggitCamara]

@Starving_Artist

Oh, I don’t know. The various lawsuits brought so far haven’t had much success in making that argument. Somehow I think the framers of the Constitution had more in mind than pink underwear and Frank Sinatra music when they prohibited cruel and unusual punishment. (And btw, note the prohibition is against cruel and unusual punishment. I don’t believe unusual alone cuts it.)

(snipped)

Wait a minute. This is, supposedly, a jail, intended to hold people before their trials. Its purpose isn’t punishment at all. Its reason to exist is to insure a suspect is around when their trial comes up.

So you’re admitting that Arpaio is actually going against the spirit of the institution he’s heading?

[Starving_Artist]

Oh, puh-lease! :rolleyes:

First of all, it is a jail and not “supposedly” a jail.

Second of all, it’s purpose is twofold: one, to hold arrestees prior to trial; and second, to house miscreants who’ve been convicted of various crimes and whose sentences are a year or less.

Third of all, and most germane to your argument, is the fact that jails by their very nature are punitive. People who get arrested and put in jail are deprived of their families and loved ones, their physical possessions, their money, their clothing, their income (and perhaps their jobs), and their very freedom itself.

This is all part and parcel of the jail experience and it has been for centuries. Jails are simply punitive. You can’t get around it.

So like I said, within that context I don’t really think Frank Sinatra music, the Disney channel on cable, pink underwear and baloney sandwiches, all served up in the cause of making the prospect of returning there as unappetizing as possible, is really all that hideous. In fact I find the allegation laughable.

[ElvisL1ves]

Ah. So they’re to punish people prior to their trials. Like Jerry Sandusky, for instance.

[Starving_Artist]

Another thing I almost invariably find laughable are your posts.

[ElvisL1ves]

Ah, yes, back in the Fifties there weren’t so many brown people, and you could lock them up whenever they got out of line, such as being in your line of sight …

Can’t you hear the laughter of everyone who reads your foolish old-man rants?