This is completely hypothetical. I don't remember seeing Scooter Libby doing a perp walk, though.

The linked CNN story talks about a letter of resignation, but not a perp walk.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/28/leak.probe/index.html

I have no reason to think Fitzgerald would have required a perp walk of Rove.

I don't think perp walks, whether in pink underwear or otherwise, are deterrents.

No "fascination" as you choose to describe it; it's just one more in a long string of bizarre behaviors on Arpaio's part that make me doubt the man's humanity. As regards the second part of your comment: whaaaaaa??? That's a heckuva non sequitur.


Quite simple indeed. A hardened criminal is not going to be deterred by anything, up to and including the death penalty. If the death penalty doesn't scare them, you think parading around in pink underwear will? As for the other prisoners who may be first offenders or guilty of a petty crime, yeah, I believe it would deter them from ever getting caught in Maricopa County again, but it is still dehumanizing and non-constitutional. Ergo, the prisoners most of us care nothing about are the ones least affected. What's the point of trying to "humiliate" them? Deterrence? Please.

I think we have different standards as to what constitutes "dehumanization". If being embarassed is a dehumanizing experience, then not many people in our society would have much humanity left at all. It's just a part of life that we all have to deal with from time to time. Some more often than others, perhaps, if they do stupid things like these prisoners did. I know what human rights violations are, and this just doesn't qualify.

Yeah, I posted that pretty quickly, and it was a non sequitur. I was referring to our topic-starter's shock and dismay at prisoners being humiliated, despite his occasional desire for political foes to be, well, humiliated. As I stated earlier, pink underwear is really just a matter of degree. Public humiliation is public humiliation. If it's not a deterrent, what is it - punishment? just to make us feel good?


BoF on Rove

That's because BoF doesn't like Rove and it's perfectly ok when it's somebody he doesn't like. Now if Rove were guilty and was sentenced to jail time I would be more than happy to see him sent to Arpaio's jail and do the pink undies walk...

Carlitoswhey and Sleeper, I don’t like Karl Rove! The fact that I wish Rove had been indicted and had done a perp walk, does not mean such a walk would have had any deterrence value.



Thanks for the editorial embellishing things beyond reason a connetion between the two statements. Had Fitzgerald indicted Rove and had he been convicted he would have been sent to a federal lockup. Edited to respond more accurately to what Sleeper wrote.

If you are going to dig a statement up from another thread, make sure not to exaggerate it into something it wasn't. Try not to a member say what you want them to say instead of what they actually say. I enjoy debating with you. You leave holes large enough to drive trucks through.



The march in Phoenix was not a perp walk, but a march from an old jail to a new one. The pink undies and the web cams in the toilet indicate to me that there is an element of voyeurism involved.

I said I wanted Rove in Arpaio's jail, if he was guilty. Because that is what he would deserve if he was guilty(which he has not been charged or proven guilty of anything). See I don't have a double standard, criminals are criminals. You dislike Rove, I dislike criminals. If Rove were a convicted criminal I would come on this site and say I dislike him.

I have a 3rd cousin who is serving jail time for assault and robbery, and could not be more happy that he is serving time in prison for his crimes. I feel no sorrow for him, I only feel sorrow for his family members who have to go through this for the mistakes and decisions he made in his life. If you want to have a crusade for those who goto jail so be it, but don't think you will ever see me put them on the same level as a law abiding citizen.

Ok, I see where you are coming from. I edited my previous post to reflect this, but Rove going to Arpaio's jail is not an option, even f he was convicted. Fitzgerald was a federal prosecutor. And Scooter Libby? I don't care whether he's convicted or not.



Sleeper I don't think we are arguing about whether or not people are sent to prison for crimes. At one time the trend in corrections was rehabilitation. Now the trend is more towards just punishment. It is my personal opinion that penal institutions are run in a way that inmates come out bitter, mean, smarter criminals, rather than someone who can become a productive citizen. Actually Arpaio's methods are just the tipof the iceberg. You might ask yourself if your third cousin will be any better when he comes out and if he would be any better if he served time in Arpaio's jail.

If you think jail is easy, watch some of MSNBC's Lockup series.

I know if Rove were convicted he would goto a federal prison, and I think that's too bad Arpaio doen't run a ferderal prison because if Rove is guilty of some of the things he was accused of he would be beyond rehabilitation anyway.




I have seen the Lockup series and take pleasure in knowing how tough it can be in prison for criminals.

I will come out and say it that I have great bias in this because I was the victim of a crime. I was going to my car after work(was 22 at the time) and 3 guys jumped me, beat the hell out of me and took everything I had on me and in my car(which was all my college text books which I had just bought a week earlier). I spent two nights in the hospital and a week at home in bed with 4 broken ribs and a concussion.

Now maybe you know why I don't like criminals...

Yes, and I can appreciate that, but I think you are distorting things to imply that I "like" criminals. The problem is not whether or not anyone "likes" criminals, but how we think jails and prisons should be run.



I think this is the major point where we disagree. How do you determine if someone is beyond rehabilitation? Do you have a degree in psychology? If I read you right, you want the penal system to be primarily punishment – Arpaio and much of the rest of our "corrections" facilities. My position is that I want to return to some balance between punishment and rehab.

Then I think we should have two different facilities. One for rehab and one for punishment. Those deemed to be eligible for rehab would spend a split sentence, first a punishment portion then a rehabilitation sentence. Those who are beyond rehab would stay in the punishment facility.

People do some really evil things and those who do are beyond rehabilitation in my eyes, those kind of people do not deserve considerate treatment in my eyes.

I don't understand the editorializing comment or how you can drive a truck through your quotes. Really. I am aware that this is not a federal prison. My point, again, is that public humiliation seems to be the motivation for things like perp walks. And I recalled that you thought this would be a "pleasant thought" for Karl Rove. Which I pasted here. I used your words because I didn't want to say "people on the Left" or "Joe Wilson" or whatever.


Right. So, would you agree that there was an element of voyeurism in watching Ken Lay arrive in handcuffs to be arraigned? An element of voyeurism in publishing Rush Limbaugh's mug shot? What is the public reason for doing these things, if not in some part to publicly humiliate the lawbreakers? You already said that it isn't a deterrent. Then why do it?

Public humiliation seems to be par for the course in the US legal system. We have billboards to show "Johns" soliciting prostitutes, we have registries, we have a man convicted of stealing mail who was sent to a post office with a sandwich board "I stole mail." All of these things publicly humiliate criminals; Sheriff Arpaio just seems to be taking it to a new level. As I said, a matter of degree.

When, where and how do we determine when a new level is unacceptable? We don't have the stocks any longer. If we did would Arpaio make use of them? How much room would you give him to push the envelope?

I was robbed at gunpoint when I was 19. Luckily I was 19 many years ago and not today, or I would likely be worm food. I can understand the biases that come with these kinds of experiences. But may I say that condemning everyone in the justice system based on one personal experience is kind of extreme. For many years, I harbored a very deep resentment toward everyone of the same ethnicity as the man who robbed me, but at some point I decided that it was stupid to do so - not every man of that ethnicity was guilty of the crime against me. My feelings are that you either grow as a person as a result of a bad experience, or you let it fester forever and become hateful and bitter...not a healthy alternative, IMHO.

I cannot answer this question until I know why we publicly humiliate criminals at all, ever (see my earlier questions). I think that you are saying that public humiliation is not a deterrent. Interestingly, even though DaffyGrl thinks that the death penalty is a "lousy" deterrent, she acknowledged that humiliated first-time criminals would be deterred from "ever getting caught in Maricopa County again." I don't know about you, but that is why I elect a county sheriff - to make my county a place where criminals don't want to commit crimes.

There are obviously a lot of punishments in between humiliation and death. Are any of those deterrents? I think it's important to define the role of humiliation to know better where to 'draw the line' on what level of humiliation (short of 'cruel and unusual' as interpreted by the courts) is acceptable.

Maybe were getting somewhere now. I don't know what is or isn’t a deterrent. Some years ago we went from a rehab mentality to a punishment mentality. We started investing funds in new jails. It’s been sort of a “Nightmare of Dreams” – if we build them they will come. Part of the nightmare is the incarceration of low level drug offenders that drains funding from, what I consider more pressing needs. As I said before we may need some combination of punishment and rehab with possibly a better classification system for prisoners.

What you are overlooking is the fact that many county jail inmates have not been convicted of anything. It’s not just Arpaio. I have mentioned my friend from Ohio who’s daughter was incarcerated Dallas County Jail (Lew Sterritt) awaiting disposition of her case. Her father came down for a visit. The father has a pacemaker and a steel rod in his back. The good folks at DCJ ran the damned security wand over his heart. Despite the steel rod, there was no place for him to sit while he was visiting.

This made me so angry that I devised a way to make Lew Sterritt Justice Criminal Center do things my way. I am legally handicapped. So, I borrowed a wheelchair from a friend and paid a visit to my friend’s daughter. My what a wheelchair and the thought of Americans with Disabilities lawsuit made dancing like sugar plums in the heads of the arpaios of Dallas County. The deputy at the jail helped me get the chair out of the car. Pushed me up to the check in point. Once on the floor where my friend’s daughter was incarcerated, the guards scrambled around for a phone with a cord long enough to reach the wheelchair. When my visit was up, the deputy pushed me from the door to the car and helped me load the chair back into the vehicle. I’ve been around long enough to know how to beat the system and believe me I enjoyed every minute of it. I have difficulty walking, but I haven’t used a wheelchair since.

Getting back to Arpaio, here are a couple of interesting links.



http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/Issues/2006.../news/news.html

In 1997 Amnesty International looked into the practices at Maricopa County Jail. Please notice the complaints at the end marked by bullets. If Arpaio has changed his practices, I think it is because of the monetary loss fromm lawsuits and court orders to stop doing certain things. If nothing else, Joe Arpaio is an envelope pusher.

http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engAM...&of=eng-2am

OK.


Your point reminds me of a New York Times article I read a few years back. The author of that piece was absolutely incredulous that incarceration rates were up despite crime rates being down. It just never occurred to him/her that crime rates being down could possibly be due to criminals being in jail. I don't believe that the government is good at building roads, collecting taxes or defending our borders. I sure as hell don't want them dabbling in the rehabilitation business. I will vote for officials that want to put criminals in jail, so they can't commit more crimes. Let these sentences serve as potential deterrents to others.

As for low-level drug offenders, I much prefer changing the laws themselves, so that (for example) drug offenders aren't offenders at all, therefore they have no need for a special classification, as they are not in prison. Having less laws seems to make much more sense vs. choosing not to enforce a subset of laws we do have.


Feel free to enlighten me as to the number of innocent inmates in county jails nationwide. I submit to you that it is miniscule, and that the innocent ones aren't there for long after being processed.

As for your friend and his criminal daughter, let's just say that I find their lack of customer service unsurprising. I too have been in a "corrrections" facility as a visitor and it wasn't very nice. Which frankly made me quite happy. It was by no means a re-creation of Midnight Express' Turkish prison, but it was unpleasant enough to remind you that guards there deal with criminals and thugs all day and don't have a lot of time to care about you, your pacemaker, or even a visitor who decides to waste a bunch of taxpayer-paid guards' time with an unessesary wheelchair.



I read in the article you linked that Agster's parents attended the lawsuit trial every day for 7 weeks and that it was a "dark period" for them.. Which reminds me of something Bill Cosby said recently - You are there for your kid in court, but where the hell were you when he was out committing crimes? Why didn't you know he had a gun in his room? I doubt this was their son's very first time on the meth. They should donate the millions in taxpayer dollars to Big Brothers / Big Sisters but somehow I doubt that's in the cards.

I don't think your question is relevant. Whatever happened to the idea of innocent until proved guilty in court of law. It seems you are saying those awaiting disposition of their cases are probably guilty because they are in jail.

Although those awaiting trial may be found guilty through trial or plea bargain, until that then they are innocent. Those found guilty will be sentenced to time or put on probation. Again, until they have their day in court, they are innocent.

In your haste to administer punishment, I think you are attempting throwing one of the cardinal principles of the criminal justice system out the window.

Edited to add:





I find it odd that you would wink at running a metal detection wand over someone's pacemaker as just routine jail toughness. Would you still be happy if the wand had killed him?

Yeah. Sounds like there is a huge risk of 'killing him' with the wand.

I don't think you read the article you posted. It did advise some precautions and offered physical search as an alternative to the wand. You also have to realize carlitoswhey that the jail's using the wand in this manner stressed the father out unnecessarily. Even if it was entirely safe, he didn't know that.



http://foxnews.webmd.com/content/article/9...src=rss_foxnews

BTW: Please address the other issue. Was requiring the father, who has a steel rod in his back, to stand during the entire 45 minute to one hour visit necessary. Would it have been asking to much to expect some "poor" deputy to find him a chair.

Your position seems to be one of advocating harshness just for the sake of harshness.

Further, you did not address the accusation that you are pulling the wings off the criminal justice system by insisting that people who are awaiting their day in court are guilty. Again, back to Arpaio.



From my original link:

http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/n...ailcam0912.html

I don't see why visitors need to be treated harshly at all and frankly how did it become part of this debate.

The best solution to alot of arguments would be to have Arpaio be a warden of a prison rather than Sheriff.

I might be willing to go along with that, if the facility were a supermax, not a minimum to medium security lockup.

Well, BoF brought it up to show how brutal county jails can be. His friend had to stand for 45 minutes for no good reason on a visit. I'm insensitive because I really don't care. The AZ sheriff may be pushing the envelope, but I think it's an envelope that needs to be pushed some.


Do ya think that his daughter being in freaking jail 'stressed out the father' any? Did she worry about his pacemaker when committing crimes in the great state of Texas? Give me a break.


If the courts rule that their privacy rights are being violated, I'll support that in this case. I don't know what expectation of privacy you have in a public facility. Seems to me you are on camera just about all the time. And, unless you are completely naive, you know that visitors and inmates in jail smuggle all kinds of stuff in their privates, and filming them from the 'waist up' in the privy would seem a common sense way to tell if they are extracting, oh, packets of heroin from down there.

I' had to read this twice to make sure I got what you were saying.

You conventiently left out the fact that the man has a steel rod in his back, a pretty good indication that if doctors implant an item like this, a person has severe back problems. Standing for 45 minutes may not be a hardship under normal conditions, but in this case it did - needlessly I might add.

I find the idea absurd that the daughter's "alleged" action can be blamed for the jail's lack of providing a chair for the father.

I say alleged, because she was a pretial defendant who couldn't come up with bond money. Did it ever register with you that some pre trial defendants escape the likes of Arpaio because they have the resources to post bond?

Again, it's the one thing for which you have yet to come up with reasonable answer. Should pre trial defendants in Arpaio's or some other jail (innocent by definition) be treated differently than convicts.

You hold the jail to a higher standard of consideration than you hold the man's daughter. I just find it amusing. He wouldn't have to stand anywhere if she hadn't been thrown in jail! Get it?

You personally got all worked up and got into an unecessary wheelchair, wasted jail officials' time, and for what. So you could rail at the man for inconveniencing your friend. Whose daughter, knowing full well that he has a pacemaker and steel rod in his back, got herself put in jail when she could have been helping him around the house and making his life easier. People with steel rods in their backs face a lot of hardship. Which is only doubled when they have to deal with situations like jails, where the guards have to control everyone's actions at all times, and the difficulty is compounded by dealing with criminals all day.

Life, as they say, is not fair. Ex-footballers who could afford Johnny Cochrane were somewhat less likely to be convicted of felony murder than poor gangbangers, for instance.


No. All jail inmates should be treated the same. That's 'reasonable' to me. Just as I stated earlier with regard to minor drug offenses - if some people shouldn't be incarcerated at all, then that is worth arguing. How criminals (and likely criminals who a judge throws in jail) are treated when incarcerated is of lesser concern to me.

I hate your position, but I love your passion. Really carlitoswhey, would it have been all that much an imposition on the jail to dig up a chair. BTW: the man now has a mobility scooter.

You seem upset that I wasted DCD's time. I rather enjoyed it. I''ll be sixty-four in a few days, and I've learned how to beat the system when I think it's desireable. When dealing with Arpaio and his ilk, I have no regrets.




The phrase "likely criminal" spits in the face of presumption of innocence - and for what - so you and others can prove how hard nose you have?

That is an argument that can be made before the judge at the arraignment hearing. Once the judge hears the facts and circumstances and puts you in jail because you are likely a criminal, you haven't posted bond, you may be violent, a flight risk, etc., well then you go to jail. Should we start issuing traffic tickets and bond cards for felonies, so that the "innocent" can roam free pre-trial?

I don't even understand what you are arguing at this point. We shouldn't jail people until they are convicted in all cases? We should treat people differently pre / post conviction in terms of incarceration? What if we did this, and an accused murderer (presumed innocent) escaped or killed his fellow inmates? What if, for example, a hardened gang-member was *only* in county lockup for a minor offense, to which he was presumed innocent? He should be treated with kid gloves because he's innocent of the minor charge pre-trial?

I don't undrstand your agument. You seem to be nullifying presumption of innocence with presumption of guilt. I think pre convicted and post conviction inmates should be housed separately. Edited to add: I would make an exception for those with prior convictions, particularly if the prior involved violent behavior. I'm not even going to attempt to answer the "what ifs" you've posted. I could ask what if a pre conviction inmate got killed by a post conviction inmate, but I won't. The whole what if thing is a waste of time.

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

Positive and negative. I don't believe this type of treatment should be insisted upon those that are not found guilty... but only those that are found guilty.

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?

Yes an no as explained above.

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?

If yes what? That I don't agree with Joe's treatment?

I don't find his treatment unacceptable to convicted criminals, only to those that are not convicted -- other than the camera's near the toilet. Prison should be rough and embarrassing. When someone goes to prison they shouldn't ever want to come back.

What's wrong with giving a convicted felon pink underwear and making them march a few miles?

Ohh no they had to wear pink underwear and walk around after they just jacked someones car, cry me a river. Let's give them color TV and some porno -- actually we should put up advertisements, steal someones car and get free health care, tv and porno! As explained before I do not agree with treating someone in this manner that has not been found guilty.

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?



I don’t think anyone else, regardless of position on the issue, had trouble understanding the question. Just to pamper you … yes, means there is a point at which toughness becomes unacceptable.

I see the marching in pink (actually the color is irrelevant) underwear as an extension of the jailcams. Note the words of the 9th circuit:



Isn’t marching people down a public street in pink underwear just more voyeuristic behavior to feed the good sheriff's prurient behavior?

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/eri...01-sinrod_x.htm

Here’s the entire 9th Circuit Opinion:

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/ca9/newopinion...pdf?openelement

This is a PDF file.

You have already said pretrial detainees should be treated differently than convicts. Is it not unreasonable to think some of the marchers were pretrial detainees?

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

Everyone seems to have gotten off the path in terms of this question. Really, it does not matter if Arpaio's methods are moral, humane, abusive or whatever. It is not realistic to assume that "what happens with Arpaio's jails will make or break the institution of corrections. Therefore, the only thing that might be "negative" or "positive" for law enforcement (really corrections) is this:

DOES IT WORK?

If Arpaio can offer proof that his hard-line methods actually reduce recitivism then he can offer something concrete to improve the national approach to corrections. If not, then his methods are meaningless. IF he produces similar numbers of recitivism, guard injuries, deaths, etc.... then how can he justify his approach?

"Just because they deserve it," is NOT enough in my opinion. Many people lead lives that end up in prison BECAUSE they suffer the humiliations our social hierarchy deals out. (I'm not trying to make excuses for people, that's not my style, but there are facts to back this):

Link between mental illness and socioeconomic status

Study in progress correlating criminal behavior and environmental stresses


The point is that, in my opinion, if a corrections system doesn't seek to figure out WHY people keep committing crimes and then figure out HOW to stop that cycle, then it is not serving itself.

I see nowhere in the arguments supporting Arpaio any proof that his methods are a "positive" for the corrections community. Whether or not it is acceptable to humiliate prisoners is immaterial. Does it benefit the system to do so?

I've been thinking more about this issue since I last posted to this thread, and I just want to say that I should revise some of what I said. I do now agree that the pink underwear thing was uncalled for (even though, contrary to what was misleadingly suggested by the opening comments, it only applied to convicted criminals, not pre-trial detainees), not because it's "cruel", but because it's arbitrary. I have no problem at all with making it clear to criminals that there can be some rather unpleasant (including humiliating) consequences for their actions, but they should also be taught about what the rule of law is. The law should be impersonal and predictable - as Jefferson once said, "punishment ensuing as necessarily as effects follow from their causes". Otherwise, it defeats its own purpose.

That said, other things Arpaio does shouldn't be that much of a cause for concern. There's nothing wrong with limiting their TV to the bare essentials, with no R-rated stuff. There's also nothing wrong with the work gangs, assuming what's been reported is true, that these gangs are voluntary. Good honest work is an extremely vital element of reform. And as for the tents and the food, as long as they're not endangering the prisoners' health, I don't see the real problem.

Sheriff Arpaio gets re-elected over and over, any questions? Quite frankly, I want to know why everyone here is getting into his business. Have you done this with the thousands of other jails in the country? Of course not, because the only ones whining are the bleeding heart liberals who found one sheriff who doesn't take crap off the the prisoners or anyone else. His constituents love him, and that's all that matters. Yeah, he's doing it right....for a change, as opposed to the millions of other prisoners who gets weight rooms and color TVs. Stop crying about pink underwear, how many of victims of these criminals went through worse, hmmmm? Have you all visited the victims to see how they are getting along; stop showing hypocritical compassion.

I'll tell you what's positive, these criminals are off the streets. We don't owe these criminals anything more than a fair trial. Positive for the corrections community is a matter of perspective. Where is your compassion for the victims? Who's getting them counseling, free color TVs, free hot meals and free lawyers? Tell me about the victims, why aren't talking about them?

1. From what I hear I would think mostly positive. I don't approve of the whole toilet cam thing but nobody bats a thousand.

2. Again, I think he is doing it mostly right. I don't know that anything about the tent prison, especially as discussed here, would rate the attention of the ACLU as it stands. There are lines that you would want to be aware of as there is the possiblity of abuse but possibilty exists everwhere. It's not the concept that should be under fire but there should be oversight. There is a point when toughness becomes abuse as seen in the Abu Ghraib incident. However I don't see any reforms needed here.

When I first started reading through the comments I was not sure I liked the whole "marching in pink underwear" concept. However I also did a search for photos of the incident to see if my initial impression was
correct. It wasn't. If you do a search through Google images for the words maricopa and pink the second image should be of a double line of guys walking in pink shorts. At least that was my first thought. I have seen many people out in public in less than they were wearing. It certainly made escape less likely. They weren't wearing briefs dyed pink. They weren't wearing lingerie.

I did see a couple of arguments "against" that I could agree with, such as treating the pre-conviction people differently, but on the whole I don't see anything against the concepts as discussed.

The Founding Fathers basically condensed the human condition down to "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness". It seems to me that anyone convicted of a crime serious enough to warrant jail time has, by their own actions, forfeited their right to Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. If the judge has not sentenced them to the death penalty the only one of the three rights they have is Life.

Now I don't mean by this that torture is okay because it doesn't kill them, but jail is not intended to be comfortable.

However if having them live in the tents in the heat is inhumane we need to move several tribes out of Africa because our leaving them their is inhumane. Also if cutting off someones supply of coffee, cigarettes, and porn is inhumane, then the worlds views are in need of an overhaul.

I would add one proviso to that last part though. In certain cases cutting off someones cigarettes can be inhumane as there are people who are so addicted to them that it can cause health problems to stop smoking abruptly. I don't know how they handle these cases though.

Just one. Since when does being democratically elected make a person's actions legitimate by itself? We have basic civil rights that even popularly elected officials cannot violate, no matter how many votes they got in the last election.

Have we done what with thousands of other jails in the country TFI?

I certainly am neither [inf act I've been called, and I quote, "heartless" because of my beliefs on welfare, education and other government programs]. This, ironically, is the same kind of ad hominem attack that we currently have an active topic about right now.

Again, being loved by those who you represent means nothing in the context of this debate. German people loved Hitler, that doesn't mean what he did was justified.

Our "compassion" [poor word choice, I'm not compassionate toward criminals, I just have respect for the rule of law] would only be hypocritical if we didn't care about victims, which you haven't and can't prove...so this criticism doesn't make any sense. Also, the victims of the violent criminals who are being bullied by Arpaio did get worse than what their assailants are getting, but again so what. What makes us better than criminals is that we don't lower ourselves down to their level [in theory], which Arpaio is doing.

They can be off the street fully clothed you know.

Out of all the things you've said in your last post, this is the scariest. We owe criminals MUCH more than a fair trial. They are entitled by law and were endowed by their Creator certain inalienable rights [sound familiar?] that the government cannot take away. They are protected from cruel and unusual punishment, they have the right to appeal and have the right to legal council. How can you possibly think that we only owe then a fair trial?

This is high on emotion, low on relevance. The topic for this debate is Arpaio's actions, period, not the victims. By your logic, it is hypocritical of YOU to tell us to talk about the victims when YOU can create a thread about them YOURSELF...no hypocrisy there? But I'll address what you said anyway, where's my compassion for the victims? I have plenty of compassion for the victims, I believe that whoever harmed them should be put in jail and not into a cushy rehabilitation center. They should not have color TVs in their rooms, I believe their jail should be punishment...within the parameters of the law. Believe it or not there is middle ground between only caring about victims and only caring about prisoners' rights.

CP

What infuriates me is when we allow convicted criminals even more luxuries (i.e. cable TV, access to free education, free health care, stable diet and a warm bed at night) than nearly all third world countries. Arpaio does have the right idea in that he is taking any and all enjoyment out of corrections. It should not be a day at the park. I was in absolute support of Arpaio when he reinitiated the chain gain. When convicts are dreading the word "Maricopa County state prison".......Then Arpaio's has done his job.

What you have not addressed is the portion of Maricopa County inmates who are awaiting trial and have not been through the legal process to determine guilt. Because of the time revered idea that one is innocent until convicted, or pleads guilty and cops a plea, they are not yet criminals. Would you treat pre-conviction inmates differently than those who have been convicted?

Is there any verifiable information about what Arpaio has been doing with pre-trial detainees that's objectionable? There was the earlier controversy about cameras violating their privacy, which he stopped pursuant to a court order. The ostensible reason for it (I have no comment on its plausibility) was to allow the public to verify that they were being treated appropriately. But now that that issue's history, is there anything else?

We would hope that they are being treated according to the law. Whether they should be treated differently is up to the lawmakers. You don't address your concerns to the sheriff, you address them to your local representative. Is Sheriff Arpaio doing anything illegal?

I read this item and lunch today and thought it was hilarious. Finally, something Joe Arpaio does that I can wholeheartedly support! It seems he is holding an "Inmate Idol" contest a la American Idol. (Heck, I love anything that lampoons that piece-o-crap show)

You have to scroll down quite a ways on the page, but there's a video of pink-garbed inmates belting out a tune. I must say I'm surprised at ol' Sherriff Joe for allowing this.

This is an update of sorts.

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?

I don't know whether he was serious or not, but Ol Joe has offered to house Paris Hilton for 45 days in his tent jail. By serious, I don't know if he really thought he would get the "honor," I doubt this. Serious also does not mean it was a bad joke.It sounds to me like Maricopa Joe newest publicity stunt. publicity. Frankly, I'm sick of hearing about Paris, Brittney, Lindsay, Mel et al. I'm also sick of Arpaio's antics. Regardless of whether Los Ageles County punishes Hilton, she should not be used and disposed of like toilet paper by Sheriff Joe. Using other people isn't nice, but then that's not one of the qualities in Arpaio that just leaps out at you.



http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/89765

I'm not particularly interested in whether or not Hilton spends time in jail, but she is the responsibility of Los Ageles County, California not Maricopa County, Arizona. If Los Angeles can't properly punish Hilton, then don't punish her at all.

To answer the question, Sheriff Baca got it right; Sheriff Arpaio got it wrong - yet again.

Edited to clarify meaning.

Used??? Used?? She is a worthless little brat who will serve some fraction of her sentence in a nice jail and be back at it forthwith.

Joe was just offering to give her what she deserves which is a taste of a real jail and IMO it would do her some good.

Joe will always be a hero to those of us sick of courts and liberal judges pouring criminals back on the street

I don't think Joe Arpaio made this offer in good faith. It’s not that he wouldn't house her in his jail. He might even bring back those hidden cameras and get his jollies watching her in private moments. The bad faith comes in to the picture because Arpaio knew damned well that the L. A. Sheriff would not take him up on it. Yes, he is using her by trying to get some cheap publicity for 45 days.

I'm not a Paris Hilton fan either. You complain about the public schools constantly. What would you say if we [educators] just wrote off every worthless little brat" that comes down the pike.

I don't have much "faith," Ted, but I do have enough to tell me that people are more often than not salvageable, if placed in the right environment. It isn't what Paris Hilton, or for that matter anyone else is, it's what they are becoming. I sort of look at things through an existential lens, it's not what people are, but what they are becoming. Only death stops this process.

Sorry, but I don't give up on people that easily.

I might point out to you BoF, she is not a child in school, but an adult that has committed a fair share of crimes. So to write her off as a 'little brat' is more than deserved. How many chances are you willing to give her to kill somebody with actions?

Me I think that jail is where she belongs, and I really don't care if she ever gets out.

Fine, let L. A. County deal with it, but even adults are salvagable and this old goat Arpaio is just in it for publicity. The judge imposed 45 days, let's live with that, not sentence her to life over the matter.

Actually, what happens in L. A. is none of Arpaio's damned business, period.

I feel the same negative emotions for Arpaio that some of you have for Hilton. In the long run, he's been a more destructive force in my opinion.

Can't say that either of them give me any warm fuzzy feelings.

You are correct that it is a matter for L.A. county. Though I believe that is not just an L.A. county matter. It is the business of everybody that has to share the road with drunks. They endanger far more people than just those that live in L.A. As for being salvagable, I will reserve judgement. I have never met her, nor have I ever watched anything with her in it so I have no idea about her.

Now for her repeated drinking and driving that I do care. Drunk drivers have no regard for the safety of others and if they can't stay off the roads then they belong behind bars period.

I don't totally disagree with you either loreng59, especially conserning drunk drivers.

This runs deeper than just Paris Hilton. There's been a thought for sometime that what works is not the harshness of punishment, but the sureness of same. The problem, as I see it, is that in this society we've devolved to a mentality of maxing people out. As I understand it, the 45 days is not for driving intoxicated, but for driving with a suspended license. Forty-five days seems like a fair sentence for this.

It's what happens to Hilton and others not so famous that concerns me. Have we lost the "obsolete" notion of rehabilitation completely? Do we just slam the jail door shut and just leave it at that? It appears so. Afterall, isn’t that the easiest thing for a “gutless” politician - one who is short on hope, humaneness and imagination does?

Once a teacher; always a teacher. I just can't give up on people as easily as others seem to do - even if they are “adults.”

It was for a string of driving offenses and her refusal to be held accountable.

'Hilton, 26, pleaded no contest in January to reckless driving stemming from a Sept. 7 arrest in Hollywood. Police said she appeared intoxicated and failed a field sobriety test. She had a blood-alcohol level of 0.08 percent, the level at which an adult driver is in violation of the law.

She was sentenced to 36 months' probation, alcohol education and $1,500 in fines.'

'On January 15, Hilton was pulled over by the California Highway Patrol. Officers informed her that she was driving on a suspended license and she signed a document acknowledging that she was not to drive, according to papers filed in Superior Court.'

'Los Angeles County sheriff's deputies stopped Hilton on February 27 and charged her with violating her probation. Police said she was pulled over about 11 p.m. after authorities saw the car speeding with its headlights off.'

'Hilton was also required to enroll in an alcohol education program by February 12. As of April 17, she had not enrolled, prosecutors said.'

Sounds more like 36 months should be the proper sentence. I fully support rehabilitation, she has done absolutely nothing to earn that. She has been given ever break and then done just what she felt like doing. Seems like her contempt for others precludes the idea that she has been rehabilitated in any manner whatsoever.

However true any of this may be, (and I still don't see in what you have posted more than one DUI) it still avoids my contention that this a publicity stunt by Joe Arpaio.

Let's think for a minute. Does Los Angeles County regularly farm out inmates to other jails? Possibly. The main Tarrant County Jail is located in Fort Worth, but if it gets full they simply send the inmates to nearby Mansfield, also in Tarrant County - not Oklahoma or Louisiana or even Dallas which has its own problems.

Has Los Angeles County county ever contracted an inmate to Maricopa County, Arizona? I doubt it. Do they do it on a regular basis? I doubt that, too. If they selected one inmate "at random" for such selective punishment in Ol Joe's hell-hole, I would suggest that this could and would be challenged as less than equal teatment under the law. I'll bet a good defense attorney would just love