With nice, firm buttocks encased in tight pink underwear …
The sick old (which is a state of mind, not age) perv longs for the good old days, when it was acceptable to rape children but not to be publicly brownskinned. Fortunately he’s in a shrinking, dying minority, even among his own age group.
Other words indeed. Words you made up in your own head. Words that have nothing to do with anything I’m saying.
Don’t bother. I don’t care why you’re okay with Arpaio committing gross violations of the rights of his charges. I was just telling you that the fact you’re okay with them does not make them acceptable.
The idiot is okay with these things, so he has to pretend they aren’t actually bad. Otherwise, he’d be forced to admit that he supports some pretty heinous acts. This is how Republicans, for lack of a better word, think. I learned this by watching Starving Artist and other idiots make excuses for the torturer Bush throughout his term.
Here we go again: “draconian?” Next you’ll be claiming that depriving inmates of porn and weightlifting gear is “torture.” :rolleyes:
There is nothing remotely draconian about Arpaio’s jail. It is difficult. It is uncomfortable. It is humiliating and degrading and irritating. And it is all of those things for a purpose: “Don’t like it? Don’t come back!”
You’ll pardon me I’m sure if I don’t quite believe your characterization of Norway’s prisons as assholes, given that this is merely the standard reaction of a liberal toward anyone who disagrees with him and not remotely based on reality or the fact that those people, like I am, are motivated simply by a desire to see crime punished and discouraged.
You people love to keep bringing up Norway, but the fact of the matter is that given the culture we’ve fostered in this country the last fifty years there’s no way such a system would work even if it’s working as portrayed there (and I have my doubts).
And if Norway’s system is so wonderfully effective why is it apparently the only country to have adopted it?
Still, apart from murder I have no problem with the idea of rehabilitating convicts so they can make it after they’re released. So I’ll tell ya what: you go ahead and build your hotel prison and let’s send some of our badass criminals from L.A. and Detroit and the Mexican border area there and let them spend their days communing with nature and strolling the grounds and eating in the cafeteria and reading whatever else goes on there in Norway. And then watch as they go back home and laughingly tell all their buds about the silly way these dipshits think they’ll be rehabilitated and how cozy and comfortable it was and how if they ever get busted themselves that’s the place to go and how to scam the system to make the officials there think they’ve made progress with you…and then they’ll go right back to doing the same shit with the same people and in the same environment they were doing it in in the first place.
This is not fucking Norway. Get that through your head!
:eek: Only in liberal land would the fact that it worked better still make it worth debate. Of course it would be worth it if it worked better. What kind of nonsense is that? Coersiveness is what parents use to raise their children, what employers use to control their employees, and what lawmakers and the police use to make people obey the law. Coersiveness is everywhere. People who knowingly and willingly break the law should also come in for coersiveness to persuade them to change their ways. It’s bound to be more effective than simply sticking them in a large building somewhere and letting them lift weights and look at porn and and play cards until their fraction of a sentence is up and they get released.
No, it is not demonstrably better. It is allegedly better in one country out of the 196 or so that populate the planet, and that country’s culture is so far from the one we’ve fostered here that there’s simply no comparison. But I’m open to changing my mind. Get your hotel prison built and send some prisoners there and let’s see how they do. I’d wager ten dollars to your one that you won’t be seeing any twenty percent recidivism rate.
Well, here on this website and forum dedicated to fighting one’s ignorance and prejudices and challenging one’s assumption, we have two anecdotal examples that Arpaio’s methods are indeed effective. And we have a few cites from your side claiming abuses that are not out of the ordinary for any penal institution and which do not begin to show that Arpaio himself or his unique policies are responsible for them. And we have you clinging to insistence that a prison system in a foreign country with a language and government and background and culture completely different from ours would work wonderfully here if only it were instituted and that the fact it’s seemingly working so well over there proves it.
In short, I don’t think the problems with ignorance and prejudice and wrongful assumptions lie with my side in this discussion. You guys have presented nothing but insults, opinion, and cites that don’t prove what they’re intended to prove, and yet you continue to behave as though your points are irrefutable and you’ve won the day.
But enough of all that. I think the fact that Arpaio remains in office and that no court has found his jail and policies to be in violation of constitutional protections is proof enough that your accusations are simply hot air based on nothing but your political inclination toward being soft on criminals.
Judge Neil Wake, a George W. Bush appointee to the Federal bench, found that Arpaio’s jail conditions violated constitutional rights. Arpaio appealed, arguing the jail’s food need not comply with Department of Agriculture dietary guidelines and that pre-trial detainees with health problems should be allowed to live in tent cities, among other things, and tried to have the ruling overturned. The circuit court unanimously found against Arpaio.
Here’s part of what the court wrote in finding that Arpaio’s jail conditions violated the Eighth Amendment:
And here’s part of what they wrote about inedible food:
Arpaio violated the constitutional rights of those who have not been found guilty of any crime. It’s a fact.
I’ve asked before for cites of the number of people who’ve died because of the heat or other conditions in Arpaio’s jail of the sort that would affect the type of people you mention. So far I’m coming up goose eggs.
And I’ve already said what I’d think if I were one of the infinitesimal number of people falsely accused of a crime and forced to spend time in Arpaio’s jail - or any other. I can only wonder why you continue to only wonder.
If you go to trial in Maricopa County, there’s about a 1-in-4 chance you will be acquitted.
I thought you were leaving SA.
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/search/results/keyword:jail+deaths+under+Sheriff+Joe+Arpaio/
There you go. Unless you aren’t counting deputy brutality.
I find it amazing that you support this sort of thing, I mean, the sheriff.
Post 139. How is it you can type but can’t read?
Well, I’m sorry, but when I hear someone has been systematically violating prisoners’ constitutional rights I have other things in mind than violating the specific degree over which certain prisoners with certain health conditions requiring certain medications can be held, especially since that finding seems to have been made on the spot and not to have been constitutionally mandated beforehand. Nor do I think about them being served moldy bread.
So, point to you in a technical sense, I guess.
Still, I believe it’s the case that in each instance Arpaio has altered his policies to comply with court rulings in those matters, and it can hardly be claimed that he intentionally, knowingly, willingly and sadistically violates prisoners’ constitutional rights when those rights have only been established by judicial determination as a result of lawsuits that had been brought on the inmates’ behalf.
In other words these rights appear not to have existed prior to the courts’ rulings. Is this not correct?
Based on what statistics? Are traffic and minor offenses included where charges are dismissed if the cop doesn’t show up or the wrong papers get filed? Are domestic charges subsequently dropped because the parties involved come to their own resolution included as well?
You know the old saying about how figures don’t lie but liars figure? I’m not saying you’re lying but I am saying that figures don’t always tell the true tale. Besides, acquittal in no way equates to innocence, and I’m sure you know that. So to that degree at least you’re being disingenuous. The question was how I’d feel if I were falsely accused, not how I’d feel if I were arrested and subsequently found not guilty.
I did. I left for the night. Now I’m back. I’ll undoubted be leaving again, and probably soon. I do need to get underway with the rest of my day. After that I may come back again. Or I may not. We’ll just have to wait and see.
Besides, what do you care? You’ve scarcely been seen 'round these parts since you started the thread.
What the hell is that?
If you have a specific point to make, then make it. I’m not about to go wading through all those damn stories on that ridiculously biased site (Tea Party animals?) trying to ferret out what you’re talking about.
And like I’ve said at least twice before, deputy and police brutality occurs in every major (and many minor) jails and prisons. Unless you can show that it’s fostered or approved by Arpaio himself then the case cannot be made that he routinely and as a matter of policy engages in the brutal abuse of his inmates, and the attempt to characterize this not uncommon type of abuse as being officially sanctioned by Arpaio himself is nothing more than politically driven dishonesty.
The lawsuit I cited has been pending for Arpaio’s entire term. He had 20 years to figure out that you can’t serve people moldy food, but apparently it took the Federal courts to inform him of that; and even still he tried to appeal the ruling.
For a guy who loves to talk about how people were more polite in the olden days, your admission of error on what you imply is a technicality is quite a bitchy response to being proven completely wrong.
If you want to base your entire argument as to the unconstitutionality and evils of Sheriff Joe’s tent city jail on the fact that he serves moldy bread, I’m happy to let you have the point. His argument, based once again on trying to make jail as unpleasant as possible while still not causing physical harm, has been that moldy bread is not physically harmful. This is why he appealed the ruling and why he wanted it overturned. It’s not something he couldn’t “figure out,” but I’m sure you knew that already.
Oh, please. :rolleyes:
Have you been taking BigT lessons? He made that same dumb argument, you know.
And now, since April brought it up, I do need to get on with my day. What is it about me that one post of mine triggers ten responses? I can’t ever seem to be able to make just one of my extremely well reasoned and inarguable posts and walk away without it triggering a flood of unreasoned and arguable posts anyway. Then I have to deal with those. Then that triggers more of the same. Then I have to deal with those. And so on and so on, ad seemingly infinitum.
Oh, well, c’est la vie.
Later, taters! 
It’s the Paterno thread again :smack:
All I knew of SA was “Oh, yeah, the guy who defended Sandusky, and endowed him with all sorts of noble motives, based on almost no evidence.” So when I opened this thread, I was thinking “How can we have four pages on Arpaio? Surely, no one is defen… whoa! He’s doing it again.”
Sounds just like his attributing saintly motives to Paterno and Sandusky. Who’s next? Manson and Bundy?
Don’t forget the dead people.
Frankly, between citing court cases that specifically confirm two decades of violations of constitutional rights, including for mentally ill people, and three specific lawsuits for wrongful death that resulted in many millions of dollars of liability for Arizona taxpayers, if you can’t make the leap to concluding that there’s something wrong with the jails based just on that evidence, what’s the point? If someone showed you a video of Joe actually ordering a “code red” of an inmate, you’d probably say that nobody really knows what a “code red” is; it could be another name for a birthday party.
I get it SA, if someone shows you’re wrong, you want a cite. When they provide you with a legitimate cite, you dismiss it as unreliable. You’re sort of working your way into everyone’s do not disturb list. Don’t believe me? Reread the thread.
SA, you claim that we are outraged about the conditions in this prison just because Arpaio is a conservative. But reading through the pages in this thread, it appears you are bending over backward to not be outraged just because he is a conservative. It takes a lot of mental gymnastics to rationalize such a blatant and obvious violation of human rights. The fact that it happens in other prisons (and I have no doubt that it does) in no way excuses the actions of Arpaio or his staff. Many liberals have been fighting for a long time to improve prison conditions, so your claim that we only care because of politics doesn’t wash. I despise the maltreatment of any human being regardless of the circumstances. Politics mean jack shit to me when it comes to the suffering of another person.
In contrast, it really appears that you only despise wrongdoing if it’s done by liberals. Your distrust of liberals runs so deep that you are downplaying these prison conditions only because we are outraged about them. You’re defining yourself by what you’re not, not what you are. Does this man truly represent you and your most cherished values? This is the legacy you want to leave - “That SA, he sure did love him some prisoner abuse.” What of freedom, family values, personal responsibility, all those things you speak so positively of? Does defending the decisions of this man really fit with those values?
I just don’t understand.
No, it’s the exact opposite. In that thread, Jerry Sandusky was a saint who deserved every consideration of due process, and the fact that he was acquitted on a particular charge meant that everybody who said bad things about him was wrong.
In this thread, it doesn’t matter if you died in Arpaio’s jail before even coming to trial, because, hey, them’s the breaks.
If only Sandusky had been held in a tent in Arizona before his trial, then we’d all be happy.
