Arpaio and many of us was reacting to her reduced sentence and constant return to the behavior that got her where she is. I am not for “giving up” on her or anyone either but the point is sometimes the harsher punishment is needed to “wake up” the person to reality.

This is the classic wild little rich girl with everything who has simply gotten away with far too much already.

Better she gets the message before she ends up doing something that gets her or someone else killed.

Ted, most of this may be true.

Still the heart of the matter is this:

1. Arpaio has no jurisdiction in this matter and Los Angeles County would be in a lot of legal trouble if they accepted the offer and they do not routinely contract with Maricopa County, Arizona to house jail overflow.

2. How do you, or for that matter anyone else, find this anything but a cheap publicity stunt on Arpaio's part.

That's ok though, give him six months, probably less, and he'll find something else equally annoying that gets his mug on the tube.

The little brat druggy served 3 days!!! Some lesson that was. Maybe when the little brat kill someone driving drunk she will not be so lucky.

And I would love to see her drive drunk in Joe Arpaio’s territory and serve some “real” time in the desert!

Ted,

Believe me, I understand your frustration about Hilton's being reassigned from the L. A. County Jail to house arrest. Yet I would prefer this to sending her to Joe Arpaio.

I hope the next sheriff of Maricopa County, Arizona empties tent city of all life (human and animal) and in the wee hours of the morning orders an adequate number of smart bombs sent in that hell-hole's direction.

It would be great landscaping.

I can understand your disdain for authority. Heck I was that way when I was a teenager but I grew up.

But why do you not like the idea of punishing people for their bad actions? I am really struggling with trying to understand this VERY liberal mindset.

Congratulations on growing up.

Sleeper, you take statements and embellish them beyond what anyone had in mind. Please stop misrepresenting my thinking. Authority is not “good” simply because it is authority, just as religion isn’t ‘good” simply because it is religion. I do not “disdain” authority per se. I do have problem with authority that is not exercised in a sane, fair, rational, resourceful, restrained, and responsible manner. (How’s that for alliteration?) Scott Adams Dilbert cartoons will give you a sugar coated version of where I’m coming from. In my opinion, Joe Arpaio is the very antithesis of responsible exercise of authority.



Let me translate. Why doesn’t everyone think like you?

It isn’t all that unusual that a “very conservative” person born in the 1970s wouldn’t understand someone born in the 40s and tempered in the fires of the turbulent 60s.

For the record, I don’t have a problem with punishing people for “their bad actions.” My original position is that Joe Arpaio knew when he made the offer that he didn’t have jurisdiction. It was a cheap publicity stunt. What happens to Hilton is within the jurisdiction. I’m not particularly concerned about the house arrest because I can’t do anything about it.

Let’s go a little deeper. It has been said that it is not the severity of punishment but the sureness of such. My problem is the “max everyone out mentality.” We have gone from punishment combined with rehabilitation to, in some locations, just punishment. N the short run, this may be a good issue for politicians to fan and good for the contractors who build jails. In the long run it’s going to cost us much in terms of money and societal misfits.

Jails are sort of a nightmare type Feld of Dreams. If we “build them they will come.”

Well BoF when you make some of the silly statements like:

It makes it quite easy.

I don't have any remorse for those people in tent city. They did something wrong to get in jail in the first place.

And what is with the Nightmare field of dreams statement. Are you saying we should not have jails?

FYI to start we are the same generation. I outgrew the “far left” views I held then.



And I don’t get it either. There is nothing inhumane about his prison – we know this because you can be sure the ACLU and every liberal, let em out of jail goup in the US has tried to shut him down.

The history of his “tent city” is that he was at the limit for the state system and faced with letting criminals out very early – and IMO this is a very bad thing to do – but done every day all over the US including violent criminals.

This man is a hero because he sail hell NO I will not put them back on the street – they will serve their time.

Too bad more states don’t have a Joe. Many people now who are dead might be alive, and many victims of those bad guys dumped on our streets would be whole.


So tell me exactly what is Joe doing that you would like to level his facility? No color TVs? No AC? No drugs?

No, Sleeper. You are again embellishing a statement beyond its parameters to make it sound like someone who disagrees with you is sort of like Alice in Wonderland. During much of the last 30 years, at least in Texas, we've been barraged with politicians slamming cell doors. We've gone to the expense of building more jails. We tend to fill them up as fast as we build them. Fort Worth is in the process of building a new jail right now - after arguing for a couple of years about where in hell they could put it that it wouldn't inconvenience someone.

That's the "Field of Dreams" angle.

The nightmare is for the inmates, prison staff and the tax payer.

So, why are we filling up jails as fast as we build them? For one thing incarceration of females is on a rapid rise.

Female Inmates
This is a PDF file.

You use the words “feel sorry for.” That’s embellishment, I never said that. I have no problem with harsh sentences for violent offenders. I do have a problem with not having adequate rehab programs. What happens? Jails become an out the back door in the front door proposition. When prisoners are released they often have difficulty finding work or even a place to live. So, what can we expect other than recidivism.

Recidivism Rate

While the recidivism rate has gone down slightly, it has remained rather flat since 1983.

Here’s another DOJ link.

Prison Population by Offense

While violent offenses have gone up, drug related incarcerations have gone up dramatically from practically zero in 1980.

Note: The three links above are from the U.S. Department of Justice. Sorry I couldn’t provide a “mature” source from someone like Glenn Beck.

I’m not feeling sorry for anyone Sleeper. That’s what I mean by embellishment. I’m questioning whether or not were getting our money’s worth from the current criminal justice system.



Just as I’ve argued that we don’t need a reincarnation of George Patton in the U. S. Military, we don’t need more Joe Arpaios running more jails. Can you really predict having more Arpaios would dramatically improve the criminal justice system? No.

Sleeper and Ted I think you are both in denial. How do you correct a problem if you refuse to recognize that it exists?

I am going to say this as gently as I can as a 'very conservative'.

I don't care about people in jail.

I would rather focus my attention on victims of crime rather than those who perpetrate it.

That's not framing the argument properly Sleeper.

The question is whether or not our "get tough" policy is actually working. I spent considerable time trying to illustrate that it isn't through DOJ documents. All you come back with is a repetitive statement about what you think.

And I tend to agree somewhat. The reality I have heard is that many youthful offenders “grow up” and get a lot smarter at about age 40. So why do we give so many of the younger ones probation and short sentences time and again?

States don’t have the money to enforce the laws and to keep the inmates. The result is far too many are released and this is why the recidivism rate is high imo. They are released too soon. And many are real nutcases, many of whom are violent cannot be “rehabilitated” and need to be kept in prison for as long as possible.


It is hard to believe that you or any sane person would prefer to have the criminals on the street instead of doing time with Joe. When they kill you or a family member is it a consolation that they were let out because the alternative would have been a Joe?

Ted,

You must realize that Arpaio runs a County Jail. His population will include people awaiting trial, people who have committed misdemeanors and people who have been convicted of felonies and are awaiting transport to a state penitentary. His impact is at best temporary. In one form or another Arpaio's get tough approach has been implimented in numerous places. Is it working?

Please look at this report from the Pew Charitble Trust.



http://www.pewpublicsafety.org/pdfs/PCT%20...%20Spending.pdf
This is a PDF file. Please scroll down and look at the graphs “National Prison Population, 1980-2011" and “National Prison Incarceration Rates, 1980-2011.” Costs, prison populations and incarceration rates are all going up.

What, other than you “heard’” something can you provide to show that the current system is working.

I am done with this debate because criminals are not worth my time or energy. There will always be bad people in the world, we need to get them off the street and into jails(or death penalty for the murderers, rapist, and child molesters), not wasting tax payer money trying to rehabilitate them. I will state that Arpaio is positive in my mind and wish there were more like him.

Fine. That's your choice. I've spent a good portion of today trying to researh the the matter and all you've given us is what we already knew you thought.

I think I've demonstrated that just locking them up isn't working and the projected costs are staggering.

I
I have never seen convincing evidence that “rehabilitation” significantly reduces recidivism. Have you? You alluded to it but did not give a firm cause and effect relationship.

One thing we DO know for sure is that letting criminals out early or “plea bargaining” there sentences to nothing or close to it endangers all of us. And who pays for our loss when that happens??





He keeps people off the street who would go free if not for his “tents”. And as for PEW what they forget to mention is the cost of crime to people – I read that a typical criminal can do $400,000 a year in “damage” to society on average. – Cost to keep them in jail = about $4,000.

You can do the math. Again it is hard to believe anyone would favor having criminals on the street preying on us rather than in jail – regardless of cost.

Cost of Crime – 1996

Based on information from 11,250 law enforcement agencies, nearly 77,000 arson offenses were reported in 1996. The average dollar loss of property damaged due to reported arsons was $10,280. (Ibid., p. 36)

Violent crime (including drunk driving and arson) accounts for $426 billion annually, and property crime accounts for $24 billion. (Miller, T. R., Cohen, M. A., & Wiersema, B. (1996, February). Victim Costs and Consequences: A New Look. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.)

Overall, rape has the highest annual victim costs at $127 billion per year (excluding child sex abuse), followed by assault at $93 billion, murder (excluding arson and drunk driving) at $61 billion, and child abuse at $56 billion. (Ibid.)

Personal crime is estimated to cost $105 billion annually in medical costs, lost earnings and public program costs related to victim assistance. When pain, suffering, and the reduced quality of life are assessed, the costs of personal crime increases to an estimated $450 billion annually. Violent crime results in lost wages equivalent to one percent of American earnings. (Ibid.)

As much as 10 to 20 percent of mental health care expenditures in the United States may be attributable to crime, primarily for victims treated as a result of their victimization. These estimates do not include any treatment for perpetrators of violence. (Ibid.)
Four out of five gunshot victims are on public assistance or uninsured, costing
taxpayers an estimated 4.5 billion dollars a year. (U.S. News and World Report, July 1, 1996.)
Violent crime causes three percent of U.S. medical spending and 14 percent of injury-related medical spending. (Ibid.)
Insurers pay $45 billion annually due to crime - roughly $265 per American adult. The U.S. government pays $8 billion annually for restorative and emergency services to victims, plus perhaps one-fourth of the $11 billion in health insurance payments. (Ibid.)
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/ncvrw/1998/html/costcrme.htm

How hard have you looked?

Here’s an article from The Office of Drug control Policy on Prison-Based Treatment Programs.



http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/treat/treatment.html



What do two question marks do for you that one doesn’t do. Plea bargaining isn’t germane to this discussion. The police apprehend people. They plea bargain in the District Attorney’s Office and the agreement is either accepted or rejected by the judge. Once someone has been tried or enters into a plea agreement, the sheriff, be it Arpaio or anyone else, can’t keep them beyond the end of a misdemeanor sentence, being acquitted or what is called “pulling chain” to a state prison. Even bond is handled by a judge or magistrate. Arpaio’s powers are limited to making life hell for someone while they are in his jail.



There is no reason to repeat the list you provided. Do you have any evidence that Arpaio makes a dent in the costs you listed?

May be effective with separation as discussed but I was speaking more of the general violent criminal repeat offender. And my point is letting violent offenders including those using guns In crime out again and again leads to more dead and injured people including innocent people as well as big property losses.







Come on please BoF certainly you are aware of the relationship between plea bargaining and crowded jails. DAs and even judges are reluctant to put people away, sometimes even briefly, if the jails are crowded. So the plea bargain solves their problem but hurts society in general. As a result criminals fear getting caught less and are more likely to be repeat offenders – certainly being “out” makes them available for this.


And I like it that Joe makes the time “inside” less of a picnic for these criminals. He removes much of the incentive for the plea bargain as well as he will not “run out of cells”. Thus he ‘makes a dent” in the costs by keeping people in jail that might otherwise be on the street. Works for me.

And IMO criminals sometimes weight the punishment against the reward when committing crimes – and Joe makes the punishment less bearable which imo effects crime in his area. Certainly we know for a fact that when the punishment in stiffer (for a type of crime – like gun crime) or more certain the incidence of that type drops.

As in Project Exile

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Exile

Ted, you are being totlly unrealistic. According to a recent Front Line story, about 95% of criminal cases are plea bargained, not to relieve jail overcrowding, but as the video I'm linking, to prevent the legal system "collapsing" under the weight of too many trials. To do otherwise would further bloat the already enormous sums we are spending on criminal justice.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sh.../view/1_hi.html



Considering the high percentage of cases that are plea bargained, I doubt Arpaio is making a dent in the plea system. Maybe he's doing something like spitting in the ocean. Remember, the people convicted of felonies won't spend 25-to-life in tent city. They will "pull chain" to one of Arizona's state prisons. You know, I doubt some inmate is going to spend fifteen years in a state prison and come out saying, "I'd better straighten up so I don't have to go back to tent city."



Do you mean stiffer in terms of longer sentences or in just how hard "the jail experience" is? Again, if you are talking about a sentence for a felony, it won't be served in a county jail. Harsh treatment inflicted by clowns like Arpaio is only temporary.

BTW: when I say rehab, I mean more than just drug treatment. I mean, for instance, having more educational and vocational training programs for inmtaes, so they will at least have an outside shot (you know a three pointer) at getting a job, perhaps escaping from poverty, and staying free once released.

Right and this then goes back to my other post on the “cost” of crime to society. Obviously if we are not willing to fund the courts and the jails we cannot really enforce the laws can we – and WE pay in lost property, ruined lives, death etc.

This is the classis problem of one part of the economy dumping the problem back on another. No jail space so the cops are disheartened as they risk their lives to bring em in only to watch them go out – until they kill or cripple someone and the “system” has to take them in.

Great. Glad I have a gun permit.




Oh I think he is doing more than that. I am sure that in the are he is a deterrent. Do you think criminals don’t consider the punishment as part of the equation in planning criminal activity. I can tell you they do.



I am speaking about the unpleasant desert environment which is a place I would love to see many offenders go. They even have to “work”. WOW consider that – ACLU hates it. They want em all to have a gym and cable TV. I don’t agree. When you commit a crime IMO jail should be a bad experience you remember not just “doing time”.





Have no problem with this but if as you say we have to release 95% of em sooner than the “jury” would have how can we afford this? And how effective is it. Your data dealt with “drug” offenders – NOT violent criminals that I contend cannot be easily (or ever) reformed.

My bottom line is we get the society we deserve. We allow misbehavior and violence in schools and it increases. We let criminals out early and they go right back to crime.

Ted,

There is no guarantee here. Plea bargains sometimes come about because prosecutors don't have a strong case and the defendant isn't sure he can beat the rap. So rather than roll the dice, the state's lawyers and the defendant's get to gether and strike a deal.

Also note that state proseutorss only get convictions ikn 30 to 66 % of cases. It's about 80% in federal court.

http://www.aapsonline.org/judicial/dojstats.htm

Any of those people who plea bargain, might be acquitted. Then they would be on the street not serving any time period.

Ted your opinions and the facts about why we have plea agreements don't line up.

You are correct and I am not against that type of plea bargain but rather about the type done solely to lower or prevent the increase in prison population.

And you \know as well as I do many crimes like weapons possession are not prosecuted aggressively. Thus our gun crime problem is far worse than it needs to be.


RAND FINDS IMPRISONED LOW-LEVEL DRUG OFFENDERS IN ARIZONA AND CALIFORNIA TYPICALLY COULD HAVE FACED MORE SERIOUS CHARGES
Most people imprisoned for low-level drug convictions in California and Arizona made plea bargains to avoid tougher charges, have criminal records, were involved with hard drugs such as cocaine and heroin, or were arrested possessing substantial quantities of drugs, according to a RAND Corporation study issued today.

The study is the first analysis of the characteristics of imprisoned low-level drug offenders in the two states, where voters approved initiatives to divert low-level drug offenders from prison and jail. The study addressed only the prison-bound portion of the population in the two states.
Researchers from RAND and Arizona State University found that a majority of those imprisoned before the initiatives were approved were more serious criminal offenders than the “low-level” label implies. Prosecutors in both states opposed the initiatives, fearing they would reduce incentives for people accused of drug crimes to plea bargain.
http://www.rand.org/news/press.05/06.23.html




Bottom line is we give imo too many criminals numerous chances to kill or injure innocent people.

Ted your Rand link is great. What I would like to see from you are some statistics about what percentage of violent crimes are plea bargained.

The real bottom line might be a choice between a guilty person walking or getting a plea deal. Convictions are not automatic.

One of the problems prosecutors have in these cases is this. Sometimes there are two or more defendants in a case. In order to make a case against against one or more other defendants, prosecutors sometimes "plea bargain" with one defendant to what is called "roll over" on other defendants.

RICO cases come to mind when discussing multiple defendants.

Here is an interesting statement from a federal court:



http://www.mssd.uscourts.gov/rules/rico.htm

You know Ted, It doesn't make much difference how hard Sheriff Arpaio is on prisoners. He can't keep them any longer than the their sentences.

Please note the strange, strange case of Glen Campbell I posted on another thread.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=217602

BTW: The Campbell case was in Maricopa County.

1. Do you think Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s methods are a positive or negative for law enforcement?

Negative. This runs counter to what law enforcement is supposed to be about. Fair and just punishment is what sets the United States of America, the greatest nation in the history of the world, above some of the nations that might have otherwise been great, throughout history. Punishment needs to be related to the crime, and needs to be decided by courts, and not by law enforcement. It is the duty of law enforcement to apprehend criminals, using tactics that are agreed upon by the people of the United States, through their votes, elected officials, and court system.

2. Is he, “doing it right as Scarborough (a conservative) proclaims or does he make you want to become an “ACLU lawyer” as Tucker Carlson (another conservative) suggests?

He is not doing it right. I have no desire to be a lawyer.

3. Tucker Carlson says that nobody has sympathy for criminals. Yet is there a point at which treatment of criminals (and those not yet convicted, but awaiting trial) is so egregious that it becomes inhumanity? In other words, at what point does toughness become unacceptable? If yes, what reforms would you suggest?

Tucker Carlson is wrong. I very much doubt he even believes what he has said, himself. Most sensible people are not going to have sympathy for the worst among us; the rapists, the wife-abusers; the pedophiles and the murderers. However, we can not become a nation of vigilantes, simply wishing to see harm come to any person who has broken laws, or we risk being in the same league. If you torture a rapist, simply because you are horrified by his crime, you may not be a rapist, but you are certainly a torturer. Why would you wish that upon yourself. By the same token, if you torture your rapist, or the rapist of someone you love, it may be because you are emotionally impacted, to the point where judgment has become impaired. This is simply not a black and white issue. If we were to try and reduce it to such, then I would have to err on the side of "nobody has sympathy for criminals" being a ridiculous, and patently untrue statement. It is a blanket statement, and as such, proves meaningless in the final analysis.

Here is some info: But there is no %. Certainly it is lower than other crime but not insignificant.


The basic logic for this is that as the severity of the crime is increased, the penalties associated with that crime are also increased. Thus, the benefits of plea bargaining are reduced, as the plea will still earn an offender a hefty sentence. Basically, the more severe the crime, the more apt the accused is to gamble on a trial, as plea bargaining really does not greatly reduce sentencing as drastically as it does in lesser crimes. Consequently, juries should expect a higher proportion of cases to involve violent crimes, and should be prepared accordingly. This trend can be seen in Table 6.

http://www.ncsconline.org/wc/CourTopics/FA...=VioCri#FAQ1041


In many cities the truth is that violence is often not punished - http://www.pulitzer.org/year/1995/public-s...e/works/VI.html


My problem with many inner city systems is that they apparently take it for granted that carrying guns is the norm and fail to prosecute for the crime. Needless to say those who are criminals – even petty criminals will sooner or later kill someone with the gun.




I know that buy I am part of the crowd that believes that criminals need to be punished for crime, should work if possible in jail and should remember the experience as more that just “doing time”. Imo this make a difference.

And if the alternative is putting them back on the street because there iss no jail space I will take Arpaino’s method all day long.

Ted,

How carefully did you look at your own link? This is from 1995 and it's about the Virgin Islands.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Virgin_Islands

The combined populand of the islands wouldn't make up much of a city.

What's your sequel - "Unpunished Crime on Mars"?

So this means nothing? Come on we have the same problems in every major city.

The NRA put together a program for some cities that promised (some) criminals that committed gun crimes 5 years in the Federal pen. Gun crime dropped significantly. The program died as even some gun advocates disliked it as well as the ACLU (naturally).


The program only effected about 5-10% of those caught with guns committing a crime. I heard the interview with the Philly police chief when one smart reported asked what the other 90% + got for sentences and the answer was little or nothing.

IMO we have the worst crime in the industrial world because we put up with it – same for violence in schools.


Most of us ignore the problem until we face it head on and get injured or worse. The grim reality is 25% of us will be the victim of a violent crime sometime in our lives.

Joe gets em off the street and saves lives - works for me.


http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_cleared/index.html

Name a major city in the U. S. Virgin Islands.

I don’t particularly care for Wiki, but they list 254 cities with populations over 100,000.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Unite...s_by_population

The most populated city in the U. S. Virgin Islands is Charlotte Amalie with an earth shaking 10,817 people.

http://www.mongabay.com/igapo/2005_world_c...in_Islands.html



I'll be polite and say next to nothing. I don't see very much value in using statistics from this type demographic to answer qustions about New York, Detroit, Chicago, Houston, Dallas, Phoenix, Los angeles, etc. Oh, sorry I forgot Boston.



I think you give him too much credit. Don't sheriffs, by job description, arrest people (those not under jurisdiction of city police) and run jails?

More important in getting and keeping criminals off the street are the proseutors and courts. Lines like the one below are all through your FBI link .



http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_cleared/index.html

I agree and we obviously have too many judges handing out short sentences and too many DAs plea bargaining crimes to little or no jail time again and again.

But IMO Joe is a deterrent and thus a “positive” effect on law enforcement. He gets his job done rather than allowing the system to push even more criminals to the street because of lack of space.

Ok, so we agree that courts and prosecutors are more important in the process of getting and keeping criminals off the streets. That's actually another thread.

I have yet to see anything concrete that says Arpaio is any more a deterrent to crime that Tarrant County, Texas Sheriff Dee Anderson. If you have some solid evidence on this point, please present it. Maybe we should have a Consumer Guide report for most effective sheriff in America - not the toughest.

As I have said from the beginning his major “deterrent” is that he provides the space needed to house the criminals that need to be in prison whereas other states and areas let them out or plea bargain the sentences to squat – practices that I maintain endanger us all.

Can we agree that letting criminals out early or plea bargaining their sentences to nearly nothing endangers us all? You certainly know that a significant % of those released will re offend. The sooner they are out the more crime by definition.

I also does not hurt that the accommodations are not comfortable – criminals don’t deserve comfort. And I like his work details as well. Certainly not done here in MA.

Ted I know what you have been saying, I just want you to provide some hard evidence to back it up.




As we've already been over, even plea agreements in felony cases end with someone doing time in a state prison - not a county jail.



Jail isn’t a piece of cake in most places. Aramark, lost the food provider contract with the Tarrant County, Texas jail. I remember when this happened. County officials toured the jail and called the food “rancid.”



http://www.prisonlegalnews.org/includes/_p...006/12pln06.pdf
This is a PDF file

Aramark lost the contract.




http://www.privateci.org/rap_aramark.html

It doesn’t get much worse than that. Would Arpaio have continued serving Aramark’s food? Would you give him a pass if inmates started getting food poisoning?

The more I think about it, the more I wish Paris Hilton had done her time in "Tent City." Perhaps her "service" to humanity could have been getting enough publicity to get this Dark Age hell-hole shut down.

I have posted it sir. Try reading the crime stats and then look at recidivism and them do the MATH. When you let criminals out early they do more crime – this is a very simple concept.





I never said I was in favor of bad food – just uncomfortable housing and lots of work. And yes there are plenty of bad state run and county jails in the US. Joe does not have one. His is by the book from what I have read.



As I have said ACLU ands every other liberal, give em a TV group has tried and failed. And will continue to fail because the man does not treat people cruelly or illegally. .

Ted you are talking about two different things – recidivism and letting people out early.

Here’s an exchange between Mark Geragos and Arpaio on Larry King Live. Garagos contends Arpaio has one of the highest recidivism rates in the country. Can you show me anything, other than Joe Arpaio’s homepage or an opinion that speaks to Maricopa County’s recidivism rate vs. other jurisdictions in the country?



As far as early release goes, even Arpaio does that.







Larry King Live Transcript, 6-7-07

No Ted, you haven’t said you favored bad jail food, but how does one adequately feed someone on two fifteen cent meals per day when Aramark couldn’t do it in Tarrant County, Texas for 88 cents per meal? Oh, I know. Maybe he gets discards from a local food bank or has his boys, when they have free moment, beat the hoboes to the dumpsters.



When all else fails, drag out the authoritarian “as I have said” and that old bugaboo the “ACLU.”

You miss the point Bof. Recitivism is only possible when a peoson is “on the street” – thus by definition if you release criminals after serving only a fraction of their time there will be some % of them that will commit crimes that would NOT have been committed if they were kept in jail.

Joe, I am sure gets some of the worst criminals, but this is not as relevant as the fact that many of the criminals he holds would be on the street in his area if he hdd not made space for them in his dessert jail – and for this I applaud him. And frankly if the state thought he was Cruel or unjust they can close his “prison” and build a structure.



56% OF VIOLENT FELONS ARE REPEAT OFFENDERS

Organized Crime Digest, Sep 30, 2006
Fifty-six percent of the violent felons convicted in the 75 most populous counties from 1990 through 2002 had a prior conviction, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Of the offenders with prior felony records, the study found that at the time of the new crime 18 percent were on probation, 12 percent on release pending disposition of a prior case and 7 percent on parole.

The bureau also reported 38 percent had a prior felony conviction and 15 percent had been previously convicted for a violent felony.

In another finding, the bureau said youths under age 21 commit 30 percent of all homicides.

Those convicted of robbery, murder and felony assault were the most likely to have prior criminal convictions http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa44...09/ai_n17194955




Or maybe they get more rice and pasta and less meat. Are they strarved? No.



Yes I have issues with the ACLU where it seems the rights of criminals is more important than the safty of the rest of us. The ACLU gives us the ability to know, for example, that there are 100 + open air drug markes in Camden NJ, but not the ability to shut them down. The ACLU does not like asking for proof of cirizenship and even fights DUI traffic stops – even when all traffic is stopped.

It’s not enough to know history of convictions; we need to know charges over past decade. Hospital records that may not have led to criminal charges, histories of physical assault even if not criminal in nature"
Debare says the background will show judges a pattern of violence and help them determine if the defendant is dangerous.
But the ACLU believes introducing non-criminal records could be dangerous in itself.
http://www.eyewitnessnewstv.com/Global/sto...mp;nav=menu20_6



Hopefully you are never the victim of a criminal that was “released early” for lack of jail space – or a plea bargan. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are.

http://www.crime-reduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rv020203.htm


Repeat Offenders
by Jerome Chou
January, 2000

“Paris Drake is accused of a senseless and brutal crime on a busy Midtown street in broad daylight. Whether or not he is convicted of bashing a woman's head with a brick, his arrest has highlighted the criminal justice system's failure to deal with repeat offenders.

Before the alleged attack, Drake had been jailed more than twenty times and was a free man for exactly 17 days out of the last eight years. Like many of his fellow inamtes, Drake was arrested several times on drug-related charges (an estimated 70% of the City's 70,000 inmates have a history of drug abuse). Most of his crimes were misdemeanors, which typically bring sentences of only a few weeks or months in jail.
Clearly, the system doesn't work for Drake and thousands of others who spend years cycling in and out of prison.”
http://www.gothamgazette.com/article//20000101/4/200

Ever live in or near Public Housing BoF? Ever live near poor minorities? I bet not. I did during my college years. IMO too many liberals and ACLU lawyers ever even notice the poor honest people hiding behind triple locked doors as the criminals, and drug dealers run the streets. Ask these folks what they want and you will find they are more conservative about law enforcement then most of us. They want the criminals, esp. those with guns. In jail and off their streets. Instead they see the same bad guys in and out of jail and back on their streets.

When the cops try to crack down the judges just push the criminals back onto the street and the black “activists” call for investigations of the police for “targeting” minorities. The good people in the inner city laugh when they hear this crap – and then lock their doors and hope the kids get home alive.

Ted,

How can I miss the point when it's highly questionable whether or not you've made one? Accccording to The New Oxford American Dictionary, 2005 a recidivist is "a convicted person who reoffends, esp, repeatedly." Recidivist specifically means returning to jail after being released.

This is not a simple question. I would sugget that recidivism rate would depend partly on an area's transcient population. Do you have any hard evidence, like DOJ links, to confirm that Arpaio has any impact on recidivism rates.




I hate to quote a large block of material like this, but what does any of it have to do with Joe Arpaio. I did a text search on all your links and couldn't find anything at all about him. If any of this applies, is he doing much more than spitting in the ocean? Ted, you are making several quantum leaps.



I’ll be 65 in September – a senior citizen by even the strictest standards. You are being a bit presumptuous in assuming where I’ve lived and what the neighborhood was like. I refuse Ted, to live the years I have left in a bubble of fear, and the allusion, (security blanket) that someone like Joe Arpaio is going to protect me. This is getting a bit personal, but I live in a mixed neighborhood - have for about a dozen years. It's only across the lake from an economically deprived area. I've never had any problems.

Again damning the ACLU doesn't make a positive case for Arpaio.



It had to happen. Someone had to introduce race into this debate. Unfortunately Ted, that somebody was you.

Edited to add:

What’s all this business about locking doors? I’ve seen crime docudramas where the narrator says that something horrible happened in a place where people “seldom locked their doors at night.” The most upper crust area of Fort Worth is a community, to the west, called Westover Hills. There’s a lot of old money and new money there. As a retired teacher, I’ll never be able to afford living in Westover Hills. If I did I would still lock my doors. I always have. My parents taught me that much. I do have some feelings for victims, despite what some have posted, but that doesn’t mean someone has to wear a sign around their necks saying “try me, I’d make a good victim.” Not locking doors is exactly that. Joe Arpaio cannot protect people who aren’t smart enough to lock their doors.

I guess we are not connecting here so let’s drop the debate. The point I am making is, as the data shows, recidivism is the % of released inmates who re offend. The very REASON Joe’s desert prison is there is the country was running out of space and releasing prisoners early as a result. Happens all over including TX.

By providing space Joe allows for prisoners to serve more of their sentence and thus they are off the street and cannot re offend as quickly.





You really don’t get it. If you ever lived close enough to public housing, and actually knew any of the poor there you would not be confused here. This is about race when the majority of those people are minorities and this is about race when those people live in areas where the crime rate is 10 X the middleclass areas and maybe 100 X the Westover Hills” type community.

What I am telling you is I knew many of the good folks who lived there and they lived in fear of the drug dealers, gangs and punks on the street and they were always unhappy about police protection. They were always unhappy when a punk was arrested, sometimes for a gun or other violent crime and then back on the street a few months later – or worse – no jail time.


Obviously you never knew any of these folks or I would not have to explain. They want Law and Order and what they get is crime, fear and criminals back on the street in their neighborhoods far too quickly. Thus these good people are the primary victims of inner city crime – get it?

They do more then lock their doors – they hide at night in their apartments and try desperately to keep their kids in and away from the influence of the thugs outside their doors.

So sir if you think I am a racist you have no clue.

While the “news” always catches the crown protesting police “brutality” when a criminal is shot. The “news” never interviews those folks that wish they had more police on their streets and that more of the punks were arrested and kept in jail.

http://www.udel.edu/soc/bsteiner/Texas%20Law.htm

http://www.wandsworthconservatives.org.uk/...News&ID=987


http://www.law.stanford.edu/program/center...s/SHayes_06.pdf

We are not going to stop this debate on your terms.



First, stop being condescending.

As I’ve pointed out already Ted, there are possibly three types of inmate incarcerated in Joe Arpaio’s or most county jails.

1. People awaiting trial,

2. People serving a sentence for a misdemeanor conviction,

3. People convicted of a felony who are awaiting assignment to a penal institution.

In Texas, we have what is called a “state jail felony.” Back in about 1993, the Texas legislature combined some low-level felonies with some higher class A Misdemeanors. The sentence for a state jail felony is 180 days to 2 years. Sentences are served in a separate facility – often a private jail. The judges passes sentence - again 180 days to 2 years – there is no good time and no parole. The only way a state jail sentence is shortened is by order from the bench and that rarely happens.

The nomenclature is different. See below:

Class 3 misdemeanor in Arizona = Class C misdemeanor in Texas
Class 2 misdemeanor in Arizona = Class B misdemeanor in Texas
Class 1 misdemeanor in Arizona = Class A misdemeanor in Texas

Misdemeanors in Arizona



http://legal.asua.arizona.edu/misdemeanor.html

Misdemeanors in Texas




http://www.google.com/search?q=Texas+Law++...amp;rlz=1I7RNWO
This link leads to a word file. Click the second link when Google pops up.

In general Texas has harsher penalties for misdemeanors. You will please note that in Arizona those accused of a class C misdemeanor can be sentenced to up to six months. In Texas that’s a year.

The longest Arpaio can keep a County prisoner is six months and even he sometimes gives two for one if the inmate works.



Larry King Live Transcript, 6-7-07

The type violent criminals you talk about are not the ones Arpaio keeps off the street. They go to state prisons and are subject to good time and parole laws of the state of Arizona. Even when a violent criminal is awaiting trial, a judge sets bond and Arpaio has no control of whether they are freed until the trial or go to jail. If the person can not afford or is denied bond, that is a judicial decision out of the control of Arpaio. If they don't bond out Arpaio keeps them until they are tried, but the length of that time is not his call. Again, Ted Arpaio’s keeping “dangerous criminals” off the street is limited to six months maximum.

Just for the record, I have lived in the inner city all my life. I made home visits all over the city as a teacher, you know – to talk to parents when there was an attendance or some other problem.

Again, just for the record, I did not say you were a “racist” Ted. I did point out that you are the first person, as best I remember, to drag race into the equation.

Considering the short length of time Arpaio can keep an county inmates, I would say his impact is negligable and that at best he's a false hope.

I try not to. Try not insinuating I am a raciest and we will be even ok. I bring “race” in because the honest minorities are the ones that suffer as we pour the criminals back on the street.




Who care about misdemeanors – most of what I have posted deals with felonies and much of that with violent criminals.


Never had a personal conversation then because if you had I would not have to explain to you about how theses folks feel about criminals released early or given light sentences because of jail crowding, liberal judges or any other damn stupid reason. THEY pay the price every single day, and we all pay as their kids are sucked into the same dead end destructive lifestyle.





Fine thanks for you opinion. What I like most about the man is his refusal to give up when he is told “no space” by bureaucrats. Most other places just increase the release rate, shorten sentences etc. – all of which endangers all of us.

And Joe now has a significant number of illegal aliens in his tents – exactly where they should be.

And what do the idiots at ACLU do:

PHOENIX – In a letter sent today to members of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors, the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona urged county officials to prohibit the Maricopa County Sheriff’s Office from enforcing immigration-related criminal laws, saying Sheriff Joe Arpaio’s ill-conceived power grab to arrest people for immigration violations will lead to widespread racial profiling and ultimately harm taxpayers forced to pay for litigation against Maricopa County on behalf of racial profiling victims.
Last week, Sheriff Arpaio announced a plan to reverse the long-standing tradition of leaving immigration-related criminal matters in the hands of federal government. His volunteer deputies are enforcing a nine-month-old state law that makes smuggling people a felony and applying it to smuggled immigrants themselves, effectively giving volunteer sheriff’s deputies the power to determine who is in this country legally. The law was meant to crack down on smugglers, not the victims of smuggling, the ACLU said.
http://www.acluaz.org/News/PressReleases/05_11_06.htm



Nothing gets me more angry than the ACLU morons.

Ol’ Joe just cost his county another $2 mil (in addition to the many millions already paid out to 2 others who lost family members in the restraint chairs).

This case shows that Arpaio is far less interested in justice, and way more interested in feathering his own nest. The guy should have his picture next to the definition of “media whore”.

As for rounding up illegal immigrants, it would seem Ol’ Joe wasted no time finding convenient loopholes in a new law on a red-hot button issue. But I have to say it’s not so smart on Joe’s part ticking off old friends/supporters. He keeps going like this, he's going to need them.

Ted, I measure my words. I am not insinuating that you are a racist. What I said, is what I meant. As far as I know, you are the first person to introduce race into this thread. This is neither calling you a racist or insinuating that you are one.



You have made my point. Thanks! The criminals, who serve time in county jails, are not violent felons, but those convicted of misdemeanors. The violent offenders are sent to state penitentiaries – outside Arpaio’s jurisdiction. They are only in county jails until they bond out, are acquitted or are sent to the "big house." In Texas convicted felons sometimes remain in county jails for a month or two, until Texas Department of Corrections determins a more permanent placement. The sheriff has no control over this.

Note: I removed the color tag in the first quotation. It’s hard to read in that color. Please consider revising.)

BTW: Since your last post, made minutes after this one, was directed at DG, I'll let her counter your post.

OK and how much does he save? Lots - look it up - many times 2 million.
Do you think he is the only system with this type of problem? If so I will post a couple of dozen links for you.




He is not the only sheriff doing this – some in towns of New Hampshire are doing this as well and I applauded them all. Why on earth would we not want police to NOT enforce the law?

Some (who feel votes could be lost) will disagree but IMO the majority will be strongly behind Joe. We all know that the “trespassing” laws are misdamenors and will not work woth a damn.

Here from your NYT story:

Lawyers and advocates for the jailed immigrants, several of whom are challenging their arrests, take a different view.
"It's really an attempt to intimidate immigrants by threatening and imposing incarceration," said Victoria Lopez, executive director of the Florence Immigrant and Refugee Rights Project.


Notice they do not use the word “criminal” in front of the word immigrant as if we don’t know they are speaking of illegal (criminal by law) aliens.

The reality is many cities and towns are arresting criminal illegal aliens – and its about time – Hurray for JOE.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13426584/