Pink underwear, baloney sandwiches, Frank Sinatra music and no porn are standard practice throughout Arpaio’s jail as a way to make incarceration unpleasant and hopefully something to avoid in the future.
That article you linked to doesn’t begin even to show Arpaio was involved in what happened to that woman, let alone that it is part of a standardized mode of behavior adopted by him to discourage repeat offenders as you allege.
Jailers deal constantly with the dregs of society. They see lots and lots of strung out druggies who demonstrate the type of behavior this poor woman demonstrated. In this case they jumped to the wrong conclusion. It happens. And it happens in jails and prisons all over the country. And it also happens that in jails, hospitals, airlines and government agencies, when somebody fucks up and lives are lost, somebody somewhere engages in some CYA. I’m not saying it’s acceptable, but it happens and it’s not rare.
Again you are demonstrating the political bias I talked about above. You have posted what boils down to an unfortunate accident/error in judgement and presented it as deliberate policy created by a man whose overall methods you dislike, and you’ve used a site making vague allusions to computer shenanigans by a disgruntled former employee which were allegedly committed by persons unknown, and a site dedicated to funding his opposition to boot.
You have simply taken an unfortunate incident of the type that happens all over the country and attempted to paint it as a deliberate crime carried out with malice intent by Joe Arpaio in keeping with his standard operating procedure. I fear you lack reading comprehension skills at best or are dishonest at the worst. Either way, your cite in no way substantiates your claim.
Yep. I’ve already said I was. Soldiers in the Middle East endure similar temps in full dress and carrying gear. Arpaio’s jailers work in the same temperatures and so do his maintenance and support staff. Gardeners and lawn workers in the Phoenix area work in the same temperatures too. Arpaio’s prisoners are shaded by tents and they have the benefit of ventilation. And while the temperatures they endure are certainly unpleasant and uncomfortable, they probably have it better than prisoners in other prisons where the inmates are locked in stifling cells in multi-tiered unairconditioned prisons with metal roofs and filled with inmates giving off body heat.
Unless they’re dying of heat stroke, which they aren’t, I’m okay with it. Don’t want to sit in 120 temps in Sheriff Joe’s jail? There’s a very simple solution. Don’t. Break. The. Law!
It isn’t that hard. Millions manage it every day. And for those who find it difficult, perhaps word on the street about those baloney sandwiches and 120 degree temps will provide some extra incentive. It damn well should!
So she’s dead. Can’t that pussy walk it off like a man ?
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Pink underwear, baloney sandwiches, Frank Sinatra music and no porn are standard practice throughout Arpaio’s jail as a way to make incarceration unpleasant and hopefully something to avoid in the future.
[/QUOTE]
And here I thought depriving a person of their freedom was something intrinsically unpleasant. Guess I ain’t know.
So, you are basically calling the death of a diabetic prisoner to be an isolated incident not related to Arpaio in any way. Except that four years ago, a Federal judge ordered specific improvements to the medical system in his jails. Two years ago, the same judge found that not a single improvement had been made, even where there was no cost to making the improvements.
And there are other lawsuits where Arpaio’s deputies destroyed evidence. For example, the 2003 beating death of Brian Crenshaw. Not to mention the death of Scott Norberg, where the county was found liable for $8 million for his death due to strangulation, where evidence may also have been destroyed.
Isolated incident? Really? You still think this is about pink underwear?
I’m okay with it provided they have plenty of shade and water. I’m still not a fan of Arpaio but tent cities in Arizona don’t bother me in the least. At least not the concept. What’s wrong with 120 degree heat?
Woah woah woah. Let’s get one thing clear - death is NOT a deterrent to recidivism. How many on death row are there for their very first crime? Very few.
Death itself does prevent recidivism however. That’s one thing that we’ve got cleared up by this point in human history. You can’t re-commit if you’re dead.
And it’s even more unpleasant when they have to wear pink underwear, live in tents in 120 degree weather, be deprived of pornography and weightlifting gear and listen to Frank Sinatra. People get institutionalized to jail cells and routine. After enough time even don’t even want to leave. Arpaio makes sure people don’t ever want to come back to his jail, and he uses humane but unpleasant tactics to achieve this. Pretty good idea, IMO.
I’m saying you haven’t presented any evidence to demonstrate he was responsible for it, let alone out of malicious and deliberate intent.
Don’t know enough about this to comment. But it doesn’t sound accurate. For one thing federal judges don’t usually sit by impotently when their orders are ignored, and secondly I have a hard time understanding how any sort of judicially-mandated improvements to how a jail handles its medical system could be cost neutral. I’m not saying it’s impossible or that you’re wrong, but it doesn’t sound…typical.
Again, when things go wrong people play CYA. Unless you can show that Arpaio is directly responsible for the actions of these deputies then it is specious to hold him and the methods he employs in running his jail responsible. That is a large jail and many, many prisoners get cycled through it. People are gonna be discipline problems and some are gonna require physical submission. Sometimes too much force is used or a person for whatever reason - a freak accident or whatever - dies from force that isn’t normally lethal the 1,000 other times it’s applied. For all I know this is what happened and when the [understandable] fallout begins the responsible parties and/or their allies in the department are likely to try to cover their butts by altering or destroying evidence. It happens.
I live in a city of around 1 1/2 million people and at least once or twice a year someone unaccountably dies after being subdued during arrest. Inquires are made and inevitably the officers involved are found to have acted within department guidelines and the families are furious and sometimes sue with little to no result. Why is the police chief or sheriff of my city not under fire like Arpaio is? Ours is certainly a worse record than his if you have to go back almost ten years to come up with two cases where people seem to have been beaten to death out of all the people that come through that jail. Again, it’s because of politics. Being both tough on crime and effective, Arpaio’s tactics are the sort that push leftie buttons so they’re out to get him. The guys in my city fly under the radar and operate in a more typical fashion so even though their record is worse not a peep of complaint arises.
What I hear when I hear complaints about Arpaio and what a sadistic racist right-wing asshole he is invariably involve complaints about the tents, the heat, and the degrading and dehumanizing effect of the pink underwear. Secondarily, I hear about the food meeting minimal nutritional requirements only, about how he tries to deprive inmates of things inmates in other prisons and jails have access to like weights and cable television. There are also complaints regarding his allegedly trampling of his inmates civil rights and so forth, but the specifics always involve the underwear, food, heat, tents, etc.
Do you have a cite as to the number of inmates who’ve died due to the heat in Arpaio’s jail? I, myself, a not particularly in shape 64-year-old have been known to edge, weedeat and mow relatives’ lawns in at least 105 degree heat. And that’s laboring out in the sun and not sitting in the shade inside a tent. 120 degree heat can indeed be lethal to someone wandering the desert without water or shelter, but the only prisoners of Arpaio’s that description would apply to are escapees.
So you might want to dial back the hysteria. People are routinely surviving 120 degree temperatures at locations all over the globe even as we speak.
Why does what you’re okay with matter? Gross violations of the rights of others should be halted, and those responsible for these violations punished for them. That right-wingers are okay with these violations really doesn’t matter.
Next you’ll be telling me that letting poor people die from lack of access to healthcare is acceptable because right-wing Christian torture-apologist lawyers have no problem with it.
Lord, thanks for all the tough guys. All the guys who show us how important it is to be stern and vindictive. Sure they fill some purpose in the Big Design, and all. But could you maybe dial it down a little? Maybe a notch on the evolving speed? Two, what could it hurt? They must be some kind of blessing, but our cup runneth fucking over, ya know?
What rights are being violated, and how are they being violated to a ‘gross’ degree? Specifics please?
And what I’m okay with matters because otherwise nonsense spouters such as yourself might gain purchase and rule the day.
Wow, you’re quite the pinballing little whingebag, aren’t you? Don’t believe I’ve ever made any sort of argument like that. No, sir. Or ma’am. Whichever.
You guys just absolutely don’t get it, do you, luci? You’re like children who think their parents punish them out of meanness. Arpaio isn’t trying to be vindictive. He’s trying to punish these people for their own good, trying to make jail unpleasant enough so that people will take pains to avoid having to come back there again.
I see no reason to provide you with citations regarding multiple constitutional rights violations as was mentioned up-thread because you’re a right winger. Your opinion isn’t based on facts, it’s based on what makes you feel good. This is clear from the way you say this twit’s actions are justified on the grounds that you’re okay with them. Someone else tried to reason with you and, against all odds, it didn’t work. Fancy that. Facts and reason have no home with you.
You have at least 20 years on me. I’ll be around long after you’re dead and gone, old man. And as I look around, it occurs to me that me an’ mine are gaining purchase. We do rule the day. Ask the black people who are allowed to vote. Ask the gay married couples. Ask the women who are allowed to choose whether or not to bear children despite the protestations of people like you. When I’m your age you and your ilk will be looked upon with shame. Neither time nor history are on your side.
Interesting that you regard the fact that those who violate the rights of others should be stopped from doing so as ‘nonsense’. Interesting in an “oh look, the dog is eating his own feces again” way, that is.
For the record, and I’m not going to argue with anyone here…I have a mentally ill friend who goes to jail on a regular basis. He moved out of Maricopa County because the jails are much nicer in Yavapia county.
(emphasis mine)
Well, *someone *in this thread is evidently not getting it, but I don’t think it’s 'luci. What do you think the purpose of those almost resort-like Norwegian prisons is, you blithering twit ? To hopefully increase crime ? To give inmates an incentive to come back ? Do you perhaps believe they’re natural outgrowings of the effete Scandinavian geneseed, or that the idea of coercive, draconian prisons is unknown or alien to Norwegians ?! Believe me, they’ve got local assholes of your kind who loudly oppose those prisons on the same stupid ass grounds you do.
The point is not that coercive prisons are abhorrent, or that they work better (although even if they did, they would still spark the old “Is it worth it ?” debate) - the point is that not only are nurturing, treat-inmates-as-people prisons are not only more humane but demonstrably work a hell of a lot better too. There’s no trade-off to analyse and rant or quibble over. Your preferred way is not just petty vindictive evil, it’s also inefficient. It fails to achieve its goals. The other way doesn’t. With that in mind, sticking to your guns as you do out of crotchetiness or “but it’s just common sense” is beyond retarded. Particularly on a website and forum dedicated to fighting one’s ignorance and prejudices and challenging one’s assumptions.
I gave you the names of three prisoners whose survivors’ lawsuits cost Maricopa County more than ten million dollars. Is death not a gross violation of rights anymore?
So in other words you got nuthin’, just as I suspected.
That entire paragraph is nothing but a nonsensical attempt at doublespeak and scarcely a sentence in it makes any sense. Still, I’ll try to address what I think are the allegations you’re trying to make.
You refuse to back up your argument because the person you’re arguing with is of a different political persuasion, although you were happy to make the original argument to him which he’s asking for substantiation of in the first place.
My opinion is not based on what makes me feel good. That’s the realm of your ilk. My opinion is based on common sense and as of now at least two real life anecdotes demonstrating the effectiveness of Arpaio’s techniques.
Someone else tried to reason with me using cites that didn’t prove what he said they did, and you find my recognizing and pointing that out to be a flaw in reasoning ability.
You find the last both predictable and deserving of scorn.
Rather than present facts and reason you merely scamper away claiming they have no “home” with me, when facts and reason are the very basis of both my arguments and my rebuttals.
Ah, here we go again. Every time I mention my age, my opponents in the peace, love and tolerance party who haven’t been able to make much headway with their arguments begin making attacks based on my age.
The fact of the matter is that, being a conservative and therefore better equipped to handle the realities of life, I’m perfectly cognizant of and okay with the fact that someone twenty years younger than me will probably outlive me, just as people twenty years younger than you will probably outlive you. Believe it or not this does not come as a surprise to me. Something you may well not have been able to consider though is that I was growing up and partying and having fun and experiencing life for two decades before you first began to blunder your way through this world.
Still, sixty-four is the new forty-four and I’m not quite the old geez you’d like to think. And besides, my politics were the same when I was twenty as they are now. So I’m afraid you’re going to have to look elsewhere if you want to find some way to attack me not based on the argument at hand.
Plus there will always be conservatives. (Even France and Norway have 'em.) If not, Europe would be far more fucked up than it is already.
I must admit, when I look around at all the people born out of wedlock the last few decades, raising themselves in single parent households where the street is their role model and committing crime after crime and dependent on the government for their existence, and when I look at a local high school where half its seniors will fail to graduate, and when I see murder rates in my city that will be a third again higher this year than it was a year ago, I have to grant that your side has indeed gained considerable purchase in fucking up the country. In fact, I’m fairly infamous on this board for my willingness to point these things out.
As for your claims taking credit for the advances which admittedly have been made but which could have been made otherwise without fucking the country up at the same time (ala women’s sufferage, civil rights legislation from the turn of the 20th century to the sixties, the end of prohibition, etc.), do you really think they could have been made had not the majority of the nation’s conservative population not been in agreement with them in the first place? You’ve simply drunk more of the leftie Kool-Aid and mistaken the actions of a tiny percentage of the populace and some conservative politicians for that of the conservative population as a whole. I can guarantee you that if the nation’s conservatives at the time had been as opposed to the movements as you think they were all any politician would have had to do is make opposition to them the basis of his platform and he’d have won every time.
But that wasn’t the case, was it? And why not, do you think (assuming thinking is something you can manage, that is)? Well, lemme tell you why. Most conservatives happen to have wives and daughters and girlfriends and they’d like to see them live happy and fulfilled lives and able to pursue whatever career and life they’d like to live. And most conservatives recognize the cruelty and inhumanity of racist policies and empathize with those who are subjected to it. They know it’s wrong and they oppose it. Thus they went along willingly when the civil rights movement and its attendant legislation and most of us around the country didn’t oppose it in the slightest. Some of us disagreed with liberals as to solutions, and we were invariably painted as racists as a result - because one simply doesn’t agree with liberals about anything lest one be painted as an enemy with the direst of motives - but we had the same goal of ending racism in mind. And on and on it goes. As for me personally, perhaps one day I’ll tell you about the gay couple who are friends of mine and who came to celebrate my birthday not too long ago. They’d laugh at your silly characterization of me.
a.) You haven’t shown that anyone’s rights have been violated yet.
b.) How the hell does that second sentence even begin to relate to the first? I’m beginning to think you’re even a bigger loon than BigT.