To continue this topic since the NY Politics thread was locked, and since this had no bearing on the topic anyway:

Quote from Max:

>>I judge the health of a society by how it treats its vulnerable--the poor, the elderly, the impaired; I judge the temper of a society by how it treats its incarcerated.  If Sheriff Arpaio was merely tolerated, that would be discouraging.  The fact that Arpaio is celebrated says less about the barbarism of criminals and more about the barbarism of our society.

I stress that many prisoners under Arpaio's ward have been convicted of nothing.  They are awaiting trial.  Arpaio is not the warden of a maximum security prison but a county jail.

I do not consider it inhumane to deprive jail inmates of cigarettes and pornography.  I do consider it inhumane to deprive inmates of nourishing food, adequate shelter, and medical care.

The level of violence in American correctional facilities is not solely the result of concetrating society's most violent and immoral members in close quarters.  That certainly is the greater part of it, but some of the problem is systemic; that is, it is a result of the overall structure of the prison system.  This, of course, is a thread unto itself.

Coddling has nothing to do with it.  Few prisoners are lifers.  Most get released. Do we want them to return to civilian life as better citizens or harder criminals?

This is the difference between the Northern idea of incarceration for reform and the Southern idea of incarceration for sheer punishment and revenge.  They didn't worry about what prisoners on the chain gangs of Angola or the Partchman Farm would be like when returned to society.  If you got sentenced to 10 years at Partchman, they did not intend for you to make it through the sentence alive.  The "Supermax" is a product of the "sheer punishment" mentality.  Three years at Pelican Bay renders a person clinically insane.

Indeed, these men and women are for the most part guilty of the crimes for which they were charged.  These people have committed abominable offenses to society.  I'm not talking about being "nice" to them.  I'm talking about what results we want as a society.

Sheriff Arpaio's pink underwear serves no purpose but humiliation.

Your logic is again flawed.  Of your own volition, you choose to build houses in the baking sun, a vocation for which you are paid handsomely, and after which you return home for cold beers and a decent meal in an air conditioned dwelling.  Sheriff Arpaio's inmates, conversely, are forced, not paid, fed on junkfood and sleep in tents unprotected from the elements.  Again, if Arpaio was the warden of a prison in which every inmate was convicted in a court of law of a serious felony, I would not consider hard labor an unjust practice.  It is far more cruel to keep prisoners caged in tiny cells 23 hours a day.  However, there's a difference between suspects and convicts.  For lesser felonies,* say a second DUI, I don't see a problem making an able-bodied convict go out and work for his 90-day sentence.  If an inmate is merely accused and could not make bail, that is very different.  Arpaio makes no distinction.  He should be impeached, not lionized.

*That is, crimes for which the convicted is sentenced short-term to county jail, not long-term to prison.>>

Max..I don't see where my logic is flawed in the least, and using your arguement of what I choose to do for a living..the key word being "choose"...

Yes, I choose to go out and toil in the sun every day, and in the winter when it's bone chilling cold, I choose to go outside and work as well.  I offer to you that the prisoners there in the jail are there of their own choosing as well.  Nobody put a gun to their head and told them to rob the convenience store, nobody told the person to drive after drinking, nobody told the guy to beat his wife and get charged, did they??

The individual chose to break the law, knowing full well the ramifications of doing so...you break the law, you face the possibility of going to jail. I'm sure that most everybody in that county knows what the jail system is like there, and they full well decide to break the law anyway.  It was the individuals choice to put themselves in that position.

Irregardless of whether or not they could/could not post bail, etc., doesn't matter....they apparently did something to warrant the fact they needed to post bail.  Last time I checked, people weren't being dragged at random in police round ups of the county's population just to toss them in jail because it was "their turn" to serve, but maybe I missed that new law enacted.....

Lets not hear any of that crap about socio-economic pressures and drivel like that.  Blaming society or class structures is an invalid arguement, otherwise everybody would be committing crimes and getting tossed in the clink.  It all comes down to an individuals mind set, they alone choose to decide whether to break the law or not.  If that point were not true, then why don't all white men beat their wives??  Why don't all black youths decide to join a gang??  Why don't all people of any race or color fall into a stereotype and all get incarcerated??

As far as the humility of the pink underwear, he's playing it evenly across the board, they all wear the same thing.  If he picked and chose at random whose week it was to wear the pink stuff, then that would be humiliating, but he doesn't play it that way, they all wear the same colored stuff....much like the military who all wears the same uniform, regardless of whether they like the color or not.  Again, the arguement you'll use is that going into the military is choice, and I agree, just as readily as it's acknowledged that the prisoners are there in that (or any) jail in 99% of the circumstances of their own accord.....

Yes...I return home every night to a couple cold Jack Daniels and cokes, just as I do a hot meal if I desire, and I can turn the AC on if it's too hot...thats MY choice, and I have the right to make that choice because I decided to be a contributing member of society rather than have the county take care of me by locking me up every day.....

Just FYI on the "releasing prisoners" comment..I have a good many friends up here who are corrections officers in one of the medium security jails.  Even with the policies of NYS in regard to the treatment of prisoners, access to law libraries, trade schools while incarcerated, and generally pretty good treatment, you'd be surprised at how many repeat offenders are brought back to the same facility within a month or so after being released, guess the lessons learned (or not) had nothing to do with treatment of the individual while incarcerated....it would be interesting to see stats on how many repeat offenders came back to Maricopa county after serving one stint as opposed to the coddling they get in a regular jail....my bet is that the percentage of return visitors is far less in Maricopa....

I think I agree for the most part with esox, but Max has a good point about differentiating between the ones who are being "held" awaiting a trial (for conviction or otherwise) versus the ones who are "incarcerated" after a conviction.  Maybe if the Sheriff set up a pen for the ones who haven't been convicted and spared them harsh punishment until they were actually convicted, that would be better?

I think I agree for the most part with esox, but Max has a good point about differentiating between the ones who are being "held" awaiting a trial (for conviction or otherwise) versus the ones who are "incarcerated" after a conviction.  Maybe if the Sheriff set up a pen for the ones who haven't been convicted and spared them harsh punishment until they were actually convicted, that would be better?


I'm checking into that very thing.  The county has plenty of jail space and not all of it is a tent city setup......

Appears that there are quite a few programs at work in Maricopa county to help rehabilitate as well:

http://www.mcso.org/include/modules/Inmate_Programs/adult_programs.php

^ I read about some of those in the Wiki article.  The Wiki also mentioned a bunch of controversies, he's definitely a harsh fellow and the definition of "fair punishment" will most likely vary depending on who you talk to.

^ I read about some of those in the Wiki article.  The Wiki also mentioned a bunch of controversies, he's definitely a harsh fellow and the definition of "fair punishment" will most likely vary depending on who you talk to.


Agreed...just as a definition of almost anything can be varied depending on who you ask....

I'm not disagreeing Rice, I think your point is a valid one....

So, Eso, would you vote for Sherrif Arpaio if he ran for president?
???

So, Eso, would you vote for Sherrif Arpaio if he ran for president?
???


We could do far worse with some of the candidates we have to choose from right now....

We could do far worse with some of the candidates we have to choose from right now....


Who do you think would make a better president:
Al Gore or Sheriff Arpaio?  Seriously.
???

I don't think I'd vote for either of them for President.  I'd put Arpaio in charge of the Department of Asskicking though.

I think I agree for the most part with esox, but Max has a good point about differentiating between the ones who are being "held" awaiting a trial (for conviction or otherwise) versus the ones who are "incarcerated" after a conviction.  Maybe if the Sheriff set up a pen for the ones who haven't been convicted and spared them harsh punishment until they were actually convicted, that would be better?


Better! Constitutional is the word.  What is with people that they bitch about the corruption in government, then turn around and think just because a person is arrested they should be treated as guilty.  Oh, wait, I forget the good kind police would never, ever arrest someone who didn't deserve to be arrested, someone innocent.  Have you ever noticed how rare it is that someone is declared "innocent" as opposed to "not quilty".  There is a legal difference between "case dismissed" and "innocent".  The judiciary as a whole is loathe to admit that someone might actually have been railroaded, or that the circumstances are such that what they did was understandable if not commendable. 

All together now:

I shot the sheriff
But I didn't shoot no deputy, oh no! oh!
I shot the sheriff
But I didn't shoot no deputy, ooh, ooh, oo-ooh.
Yeah! all around in my home town,
Theyre tryin to track me down;
They say they want to bring me in guilty
For the killing of a deputy,
For the life of a deputy.

(I shot the sheriff,)
But I say (but I didn't shoot no deputy),
I didn't shoot no deputy (oh, no-oh), oh no!
(I shot the sheriff.) i did!
But I didnt shoot no deputy. oh! (oo-oo-ooh)

^ And if tormenting prisoners prevented crime, we'd be crime-free by now.
::)

^ And if tormenting prisoners prevented crime, we'd be crime-free by now.
::)


No, that'd only prove that we weren't torturing them harshly enough.

Whenever a governmental policy fails, the solution is never to change the policy, but to do more of what's been deemed the correct solution. 

The Jackass party just needs a few trillion dollars to win The War on Poverty.  The Elephant party needs a few trillion dollars to win The War on Terror.  Whenever either parties temporarily run out of excuses, there's always bipartisan support The War on Some Drugs and The War on Music/Movie/Software Piracy.

No, that'd only prove that we weren't torturing them harshly enough.

Whenever a governmental policy fails, the solution is never to change the policy, but to do more of what's been deemed the correct solution. 


When has "torture" been "deemed the correct solution"?
(He asked anticipating more frat house logic.)
::)

When has "torture" been "deemed the correct solution"?
(He asked anticipating more frat house logic.)
::)


Family Guy Answer:  Nine... (*pause for dramatic effect*)  ...Eleven. 

Serious Answer:  Since we made it policy.  "You seem to have a problem with torturing people who hate America and want to kill our children... Why do you hate America, don't you want to protect our children?"  :)

Most political logic works as follows:

1: A disaster happens.  "Oh Noes!"
2: Public cry of "Something must be done!"
3: Politician suggests that (he heard from his lobbyist that) "X is Something."

And therefore:

4: Everyone agrees that "X is What Must Be Done."

Witness the V-Chip, the DMCA, the building-in of DRM into HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, the TSA security theater at the airport,  zero-tolerance policies at any school (expulsions for Midol, aspirin, and even cough drops), domestic surveillance that exceeds anything the pre-Gorbachev KGB could have fantasized about, and last but not least, our dear Sheriff.

Family Guy Answer:  Nine... (*pause for dramatic effect*)  ...Eleven. 

Serious Answer:  Since we made it policy.

If the the Fuhrer decrees it, it must be correct!

When has "torture" been "deemed the correct solution"?
(He asked anticipating more frat house logic.)
::)


And that is what you got    ;)

And that is what you got    ;)


Uhhh...I wish I got a frat house answer, 'cos the answer I got sounded an awful lot like Hitler-Jugend logic!
:o

Uhhh...I wish I got a frat house answer, 'cos the answer I got sounded an awful lot like Hitler-Jugend logic!
:o


Hey, you're the guy saying nice things about the Fuhrer, not me :)

(For those not following closely, I'm the guy that thinks "satire" is something other than Mussolini's answer to the question "Whazza da word for dat big round rubber thing, you gotta four of 'em, you putta them onna the wheels?" :)