Some years ago Joe Scarborough had Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio on his show. Arpaio bragged about spending less to feed his prisoners than he did his police dogs. Scarborough called Arpaio “the real deal” and proclaimed that he was a sheriff who was "doing it right."

I was infuriated and suspect that many other people were, also. I sent Scarborough a nasty email, sent MSNBC one asking that he be fired and sent emails to some of his sponsors asking for his firing. I think MSMBC was deluged with complaints. MSNBC never released the transcript t for that edition of Scarborough Country. Interestingly, they did release the transcripts for all other programs that night, including Hardball and Countdown.

Recently Arpaio has appeared in the news again. Once for losing a case about a “jailcam” that showed, among other things, prisoners using the bathroom.

Arpaio opened a new jail recently and marched his prisoner’s from the new jail to the old wearing nothing but pink underwear.



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



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14816541/

Questions for debate

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

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?

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?

Questions for debate

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

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?

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?

When asked their opinion of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, most critics dutifully repeat the tired old cliché - he is a publicity hound, and he has violated inmates' rights resulting in their deaths on occasion. Yet when asked to expound, most people cannot explain in legal terms how inmates' rights are being violated

The truth is that only a very few inmates in Arpaio's jails have been seriously harmed while fighting law enforcement who were trying to restrain them. In fact, these numbers are comparable to numbers in other county jails around the country. Department of Justice statistics show that there are over 40 accident related inmate deaths per year in jails across the country. Furthermore, as Maricopa County's Risk Management pointed out, sheriffs are frequently the target of lawsuits, and the number of lawsuits against Arpaio is typical, as indicated by the fact that insurance premiums have not risen.

Questions for debate

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

This man is a folk hero and loved by millions. He became famous when he built his ‘prison” in the desert after being told the system would be letting criminals out far short of their sentences because there was no space in the jails and no money for more. He got army tents and put the criminals right out on the desert. Which IMO and that of many others is far preferable to doing what many states and cities do – which is just pour them back on the street.

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?
Yes he is and I am sure he feeds the prisoners the same (mediocre) food other inmates get. You can be sure that criminals know that when you do a crime in his area you WILL go to jail and serve your sentence and you will NOT have AC and color TV.

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?

If there were treatment violations you would think the State would deal with it. I for one see no reason to make criminals comfortable and a nice tent in the desert is just fine. What exactly does this prison do that is “inhumane”. And since you mentioned the ACLU you can bet they would be all over him if he was “inhumane”. The reality is this tough Sheriff has just refused to allow the “system” to force him to dump criminals baack on the street after serving a fraction of the time the jury gave them. We need more men like him.

You are missing somethings Ted.

1. Tucker Carlson, a self-proclaimed "conservative," brought up the ACLU, not I.

2.I would call putting someone on a jail cam using the toilet humiliating and inhumane. I would call marching people down the street in pink underware humiliating and inhumane.

3. Many of the people in county jails are not yet criminals. They have been convicted of nothing and are simply there while awaiting trial. Innocent until found guilty in a court of law still applies, even in Maracopa County, Arizona.

I like the guy and I think he is doing the right thing.

I don't think criminals should get AC, TV, or any other amenities.

A tent city in the desert sounds great to me. Hard manual labor all day and the most basic of rations.

And what is wrong with pink underwear? Is hurting a criminals feelings against the constitution now?

Edit to add: I think this should only apply to those convicted and not those awaiting trial.

I agree on the camera not the road march. IMO all prisoners should do road work By the way he said he uses the pink so that it will not be stolen! You can understand what you would not want to steal it.

.

Well then direct your anger at the County and not the Sherriff. He is using what he has available. Should we just let em go because there is no space to hold them. This is the JAIL in this County. The man is a hero because he is keeping the criminals IN JAIL where they belong. Obviously anyone charged can make bail if they choose to.

I knew this one would bring the hardcore conservatives out of the woodwork.

I don't see Arpaio as a hero, folk or otherwise. I don't like him. I think he's the closest thing the U.S. has to a neo-Nazi thug in a unifom.

Did you ever think that some diversion is necesary for prisoners. Perhaps TV and other entertainment gives them something to do other than assault each other and their guards.

Apparenty Arpaio marched the whole jail, not just convicted criminals, over to the new jail in pink underware. In either case I think it stinks.

I will predict that Arpaio is near the end of his run.

Nothing per se. I think it's wrong to march them in pink underwear. Although we call jails "correctional facilities" jails function as containment units. Where does humiliation figure in containing a law-breaking population? Why should we accept that when a criminal serves time for his crime the sheriff can film them, male and female, taking a dump on the crapper when we would throw an employer or hotel owner behind bars for doing the same thing?

Arapio doesn't make a distinction between those awaiting arrangement and convicted criminals. He doesn't make a distinction between violent criminals and non-violent criminals. He's an equal opportunity offender.

I would love for criminals to assault each other... Especially the murders and rapists.

These scum don't deserve entertainment. They should be made to pass their waking hours by doing hard labor.

I'm sorry but you won't ever see me taking the side of a convicted criminal in any instance... even if it were my own relative.

I'm sorry, I missed where you posted the evidence that such assaults are more common in Arpaio's jails than elsewhere in the country.

I think you are being short sighted. In a violent environment, would a guard's safety not be equally compromised?

As far as I'm concerned, Arpaio is no better than many of the criminals in his jail. What he is doing to these people, some of whom may be innocent is absoluetely disgusting, and what is even more disturbing is he's popular as a result of it. Ridiculous. These people are in jail...from what I hear, jail sucks, no more humiliation is necessary, especially, as has been said, he doesn't distinguish between offenders and doesn't really care that some of his victims aren't criminals.

I'm also a little confused at the support for the camera...What compelling interest does the government have in filming prisoners going to the bathroom...Jesus, what compelling interest does the government have in watching people NOT CONVICTED OF A CRIME use the bathroom. Honestly, what is the positive of these actions? Can anyone answer that, what's the point of these actions if not to just humiliate the prisoners?

CP

That is why I said each other... Although not to go off topic anymore if you want to talk about the violent environment of prisons, I think you should start another topic.

I was responding to your assertion that it's ok for prisoners to assault each other. My point is that if prisoners are angry enough to assault each other, they are more likely to assault guards. Diversions like TV are needed in jails.

Look in the mirror to see who drug this off topic, if indeed it is.

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

Negative. He just enforced the opinion (sometimes justified, sometimes not) of law enforcement being little more than thugs with badges and guns. His attitude encourages others to have little regard for other human beings. The deaths in his prison and the resulting lawsuits would teach most people a lesson, but not Joe (though I did read where he had to retire the restraint chair).

I think Sheriff Arpaio is a sick, cruel individual full of (self?) hate who is compensating for never having known his mommy and having a daddy who never paid much attention to him. His upbringing mirrors many socio and psychopaths’. I bet Joe pulled the wings off flies and tortured animals when he was a kid. Being in a position where no one can challenge his authority feeds his pathology and encourages him to go further and further. Creating female chain gangs and filming female inmates on the toilet is a fine example of a very, very sick mind.

But of course these days, cruelty and violence are seen as virtues.

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 have little to no sympathy for those criminals who commit crimes against persons, but I highly doubt that many convicted pedophiles, rapists and murderers are being held in tents in the Arizona desert – too big a security risk. As for property crimes and drug violations and the majority of the petty criminals that likely make up Joe’s prison population, I believe he is so far over the line he can’t remember if there ever was a line. There are laws against keeping animals tied up outside in the elements. These are human beings, even though the blood-and-guts, law-and-order crowd would like to dehumanize them.

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?
Joe Arpaio likes to brag about how much money he has saved the state on prisoner care by serving spoiled bologna sandwiches, but what he doesn’t seem to realize is that the (taxpayer!) money paid out in multi-million dollar lawsuits would pay to build better prisons, and create humane prison conditions. Sheriff Joe is nothing more than a bully with a badge.

So TV soothes the savage beast? Got a link that shows that if we have television in prisons that there is less violence?
Why are you so worried about criminals anyway?

The issue is much larger than just television. Like the rest of us, prisoner's have 24 hours in a day. If they have a job in the institution, that takes up some time. Eating and sleeping takes up time. So what do prisoners do with spare time? Are they to sit like a Buddha and do nothing? What else would you take from them - books, cards? I taught school for 34 years. Do you know when kids started getting in trouble? When they don’t have enough to do and/or were bored. By the same token we don't want idle, bored prisoners.

I've seen some of the "Lockup" series on MSNBC. Television and other items are privileges prisoners can have for appropriate behavior and that can be taken away for in appropriate behavior. I'd say that such things are a powerful bargaining chip.

Considering what I've said above, I think Arpaio is part of the problem, not the solution.




There are a couple of reasons, though this rather impertinent question is off-topic.

First, most prisoners are going to get out eventually. It would be nice if current penal practices contained at least as large a rehabilitation element as a punishment. It would be nice if prisoners emerged from jail with minimal bitterness and the tools to make it rather than leaving through the back door only to reenter at the front later.

Second, going to jail may take away freedom, but it does not take away a person's humanity.

Arpaio fails miserably on this point.

I think Bob Dylan had it right in his song George Jackson

"Sometimes I think this whole world
Is one big prison yard.
Some of us are prisoners
The rest of us are guards."

http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/jackson.html

Your mindset is much like that of a person who asks an attorney why he or she is representing an unpopular client.

Now, I have a question for you. Why do you want to run penal institutions that turn out mean, embittered persons with no skills?

Going to jail does not take away their humanity, the crime they committed against another human does.
(This applies to victim crimes, as I think victimless crimes are not on the same level as crimes which involve victims)

No my mindset is more like asking the attorney why he/she would defend a person they know without a doubt to be guilty.

If this kind of thinking we get from Arpaio's supporters, then he is more dangerous than I thought and we are in more trouble than I thought. A heinous crime does not make a person any less human, just perhaps a "bad" human.



Again, this is the type thanking that has allowed people like Arpaio to thrive. The right to representation has nothing to do with guilt or innocence. The client is still innocent until declared so in a court of law or until a plea arrangement is agreed upon. Often attorneys arrange plea bargains for clients, broker surrenders, etc. If, however, I were an attorney I would be rather reluctant to get a client to surrender into the "loving" arms of Joe Arpaio.

Jeez you even used the word 'perhaps'

I guess I am one of those people who believe murderers and rapists are less than human.



Plea agreements? Give me a break!! If you think murderers and rapist deserve plea agreements in the first place it's this type of thinking that will allow these types of people back onto the streets.

No, they shouldn't. And according to RedCedar's post, the option of working in chain gangs is made available to them, and many of them have responded favorably to it. As far as I can see, that's much better for their rehabilitation then having them watch TV all day.


It would also be nice if they left with an intense desire not to return. Better yet if it filled potential criminals with a similar desire not to go there in the first place.

By the way, in regards to your reentry comment, do you have some evidence to show that recividism is higher in Maricopa County than elsewhere? It's interesting that even this anti-Arpaio website is unable to make the claim that his methods have been ineffective against crime.

This is a decent point Blackstone, but I don't think it really matters whether or not these tactics are effective or not [and I know you weren't the one who initially brought up this point originally]. I think the main point here is humiliating prisoners is not part of their sentence, they're sentenced to X years/months in jail, not humiliation at the whim of a powertripping sherriff, and this is to say nothing of the people he is vicitimizing who aren't even guilty of a crime. Either this debate has gone a little off track or I'm missing something...Is anyone actually condoning what this guy is doing to potentially innocent people? Is anyone saying that taping people using the toilet is a necessary/right thing to do? Because if anyone does, I'd like to know what the justification is for that. Sleeper, just to clear things up, because I don't see a clear answer in your posts, do you support this guy marching prisoners [some of whom haven't been found guilty of a thing] wearing pink underwear and do you support him videotaping they're usese f the toilet, as I said, I can't find a real clear answer in your posts, I appologize if I'm misunderstanding or no seeing something.

CP

I agree that he shouldn't be taping unconvicted suspects using the toilet, and he's been ordered to stop (and has complied). As for what the sentence is of the convicts, apparently they were sentenced to be prisoners under his watch, with all that implies. I suppose maybe a case could be made on behalf of those who committed their crimes before he became sheriff, but even still, the fact remains that corrections officials do have a certain amount of discretion, and that introduces some degree of uncertainty into any sentence. As long as he's not engaging in actual mistreatment, by which I mean things like torture, sleep deprivation, withholding of essential medical treatment, unjustifiable solitary confinement, and the like, I don't see the serious problem. They committed the crime, they can face the consequences.

Like I said earlier.. This should only be for those who are found guilty and convicted. And I think the videotaping of them using the bathroom is way out of bounds and tasteless. But I have no problem with them being marched in pink underwear.

I used "perhaps" to keep from ruling out the idea that someone might be mentally unbalanced rather than "bad."



I have seen cases on Court TV where a defendant in a murder case would plead guilty to avoid the death penalty. Such procedures save the victim's family a trial, if they don't want to go through one, and saves the state money.

This happens. Don't blame me for reporting it. Talk to your district attorney.

Edited to add:

My previous post got mixed in with this one and then deleted, so, I'll try to reconstruct it as best I can.



Maybe the question should be why you are not opposed to this practice.

Wouldn't having the prisoners fully clothed, rather than in pink underwear, while walking to the new jail on a city street, remove the voeyuristic element. Like the toilet issue, I think this feeds into what I colnsider Arpaio's prurient interest.

As a citizen of AZ I gotta say i love Joe, and so do a great many people here.
The pink clothes, the bread he feeds prisoners the chain gangs and the tent city.
OK the armored personel carrier was a bit much
but i like his style. The great thing about Joe is that you KNOW he has your back. he does not place the needs of criminals ABOVE those who have somehow managed to go through life without turning criminal.
He doesn't accept excuses from people who want to blame every bad choice they have made on others, or "society".
Do the crime do the time. seems simple enough to me.
No luxuries should ever be offered except for necessities.

Chain gangs -- good. we're paying to house and feed these fools why shouldn't they return something back.
I would support redemption opportunities--such as job training, but only if they earn it.
So would Joe.
As long as he wants the job here he'll have it. Arizona wouldn't lose him for nothing.

christopher,

I have one question. Do you distinguish between those prisoners who have been convited of a crime and are serving the time in county jail or are awating transfer to a penitentary and those awaiting trial who have not yet been convicted of commiting any crime in a court of law?

It is my opinion that Arpaio is in the Dark Ages on most issues but I will try to outline where I think he has merit.

First, I believe that Sleeper is seeing this a bit narrowly. "Murderer's and Rapists" do not make up the entirety of the prison population in the United States. While I agree that these hardcore, dangerous criminals should be treated like dogs, there is little justification for Arpaio's methods. From what I have read and from the one-hour report I saw on his jail it appeared to me that he was serving medium to high security prisoners in this manner. I believe that his most serious, violent offenders were languishing in supermax prisons all over the country. Even IF he was "servicing" ALL of his inmates in this manner only about 50% of them would be violent offenders according to National Statisics.

If memory serves me (which it does only about 50% of the time), Arpaio is treating mostly drug offenders and property offenders in this manner. If you browse the above-linked website you will find that a large number of these people are also mentally ill individuals who have been lost in the justice system.


That being said, it is becoming clear to authorities in the criminal justice system that there is a need for effective rehabilitaiton programs for most offenders. I recently heard (on NPR) about a program that treats drug and alcohol addiction as a mental illness and has had great success in treating and rehabilitating inmates (though it's long-term benefits are now being tested in around the country).
The old system of prosecute, contain and then release has proven that it is not viable. If a prison system does not work toward releasing skilled, mentally healthy individuals back into the population then it is doomed to see all of its "clients" return.

I cannot imagine that humiliating a burglar or drug addict will stop them from resuming their only known method of survival when they are released from jail....and they WILL be released.
The only logical "next step" to Sleeper's vision of incarceration would be to euthanize inmates when the population gets too high. While you might have my ear when it comes to criminally insane murderers and rapists, I can hardly agree that drug addicts, dealers and thieves are disposable Americans.

Arpaio's vision of repressive and humiliating containment will only embitter the inmates. It will not empower them to rise above their low social status; it will not empower them to become educated Americans; and it will certainly not reduce the rate of recitivism in his jails. You have only to learn about (and get to know) people who live in ignorance and squalor to know this is true.

Maybe it would. But if the "voyeuristic element" helps deter others from wanting to be among the exhibitionists, then I'd consider it a good thing.

This is a weak argument at best - the kind someone makes when their only purpose is to be a fly on the wedding cake. Are you saying we should make public policy - marching prisoners down a public street in in pink underwear -is ok on the off, way off, chance that it "might" deter crime?

We could get into all kinds of slippery slope arguments here about what Arpaio might do that would be a deterrent - public whipping, the stocks, the ducking stool, but let's not go there.

I'm saying it's a part of the equation that needs to be addressed. But I don't see how it's a "way off" chance of it deterring crime. I think lack of deterrence, in various forms, has contributed greatly to the level of crime our society suffers from. Deterrence in general should not be given short shrift.


Since he's enjoined from doing any such thing, there's no need to go there, for the purposes of this discussion.

I don’t think you can defend Arpaio on whether or not his methods work. Ends do not always justify means and the Nietzsche like concept of “might makes right” isn't always the best public policy.




Please give us some evidence - from any period in history - that marching prisoners down city streets in pink underwear has ever been a deterrent. If this is such a deterrent, then why doesn’t Arpaio take the boys and girls out for a similar stroll each morning. It might actually be positive. A few of them might escape, if they manage to elude the dogs and guns.

Come to think of it, this might make for a good "B" grade movie - Escape from Tent City. Ah, the intrigue

But until either local or federal officials find something illegal about his tough actions, then he should be allowed to practice them especially if they are effective against keeping crime rates lower in that area. I really can't believe hurt feelings are being taken into consideration when we are talking about people in jail.

Also since a lot of the positive things Arpaio have been left out I will post them now:

He has banned coffee (for having no nutritional value), smoking, and porno magazines. He has removed the weightlifting equipment and cut off all but "G" movies. The cable TV system (which is mandated by court order), has but few stations Arpio deems to be "Educational" Those being Animal Planet, ESPN2, The Weather Channel, and Food Network.

Is somebody going to now tell me that prisoners have the right to porn and better cable?

Arpaio has instituted a program for inmates to study while in jail and to try to recover from drug abuse. This program is named Hard Knocks High, which is the only approved high school program in any American jail. Another jail program, called ALPHA, is aimed solely at getting inmates away from drug abuse.

This proves Arpaio is trying to help those who are in jail because of drug abuse.

Seriously Sleeper. Do you really think banning coffee, and weightfting eqipment are positives?

The rating system for movies is arbitrary at best. Porno movies aside, how many fine movies have carried a tag other than "G"?

Shindler's List, for example, was "R" rated. I can see Arpaio's not wanting them to see this one. Some of the characters in Oskar Shindler's life might remind the inmates too much of Arpaio.

With the emphasis on "G' ratings, I'll bet Old Joe reads them a bedtime story and tucks them in at night.

As coffee has no nutritional value and costs the tax payers money, yes I do think that is a positive. And there are other ways the convicts can stay in shape aside from weightlifting. We don't need bigger and stronger criminals in jail, I thought you were concerned about guard safety BoF. Do you want convicts in the jail that can bench press 400lbs and 18 inch bicepts?

We aren't debating the rating system of movies here so that is not relevant.

I have never seen somebody so concerned for the well being of prisoners in jail. Why not focus your energy on the victims of crime?

I do know from MSBBC's lockup series that at least some prison have weightlifting equipment. I don't see it as that much of a safety issue.



You were the one who brought up that Arpaio allowed only "G" rated movies being shown - all of six hours ago. Have you forgotten so soon?




You seem to be doing a good job of that, so you take your position, for whatever reason, and I'll take mine.

Yes but I am not the one who questioned the way movies are rated, you did and that is not relevant to this debate.




"For whatever reason"? You say that as if there is something wrong with my stance that victims of crime are far more important that those who commit the crime. I should be the one saying "For whatever reason".

We are just going to have to disagree about the relevance. I think it is just as relatevant that Arpaio doesn't allow "PG," "PG-13," and "R" rated movies as it is that he does allow "G" rated ones. You think allowing only "G" rated movies for adult populations a positive, I see it as a negative. Changed to "stalemate" to hujmor Sleeper.

Actually I would prefer they watch no television at all and only be allowed to read books. And when you agree to disagree it's stalemate.

What would you do with inmates who can't read? In that coujnty jails are usually temporary facilities, most inmates probably wouldn't have time to learn before being released or being sent on to the penitentary.

Texas Department of Corrections, has a lengthy list of books inmates are not allowed. I have a friend, whose daughter was in jail. I sent her a number of books she wanted and they sent some back.

I got around this on one occasion. She wanted The Hunt by William Diehl. It was forbidden and they refused to accept it. Years earlier, the same book wABs entitled 27. I sent an older copy under that title and they never knew the difference.


It wouldn't surprise me if Old Joe censors books, too.

Public humiliation has often been a part of criminal justice throughout history. And the fact that you object to it so strenuously on humanitarian grounds is evidence enough that it's as much of a deterrent as any deterrent can be. Since it was you who claimed that it would have only a "way off" chance of deterring crime, I think maybe you should be the one to back that up somehow.


I recall a thread a few months ago where your sole objection to one of my comments was that it was allegedly "outside the mainstream". Actually cheering the thought of criminals escaping to commit more crimes would certainly put your post in that category.


Oooo! The Nazi card! Now there's a sign of clear thinking on this issue. After all, we all know that pink underwear and G-rated movies are just one step away from starvation labor and the gas chambers.

Actually, some do and its not a bad idea. Well, not sit like a Buddha and do nothing, but sit like a Buddha and practice Vipassana.

Vipassana Medication Courses in US Prisons.

I first heard about this on NPR. This has been shown to reduce prison violence.

No, I think it is up to you to prove that the pink underwear episode has any deterrent value. Your style of demanding much and producing little doesn't wash with me.






If you are going to quote something I allegedly said in another context, then please produce it.

Blackstone you need to learn to recognize tongue-in-cheek when you see it.





Where do you see the word Nazi in the paragraph above? You don’t, but you did catch my drift. Arpaio is in my opinion a neo-Nazi. He brags publicly about underfeeding his inmates. The gas chamber remark isn’t applicable, because he couldn’t do it if he wanted.

Prove it's a deterrent.

Seeing as how the ultimate punishment does such a poor job in deterring crime, what makes you think humiliating prisoners by making them wear pink underwear would? Arpaio's just lucky some insolent prisoner doesn't just shuck the undies and stroll along butt-naked just to spite the whole silly exercise. All humiliation does is make a person that much more resistant and angry...hmm, seems to me another bully tried something like that somewhere else with that result....

Not everyone in Arizona "loves" Joe. Here's a tidbit from the Recall Joe Arpaio website:

Reading some of the other stuff on this page confirms my believe that Joe is a sandwich (or two) shy of a picnic.

Apologies for the quick comment, but if public humiliation isn't a deterrent, why the fascination with the 'perp walk' or desire to see Karl Rove 'frog-marched' through the public square?

And not that a "recall Arpaio" website wouldn't be 100% accurate, I found this link to a no-longer available Arizona Republic article which explains the french connection thing.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/fr/639754/posts

Nice recovery from your original impertinent oneliner.

I don't think anyone ever thought of a Rove perp walk as a deterrence. Though many of us would have thought it amusing.

Had Fitzgerald made Rove do a perp walk, it wouldn't have been in pink underwear.

It might help to compare some numbers here, such as the percentage of murderers that actually receive the death penalty. I'm not just talking about those who receive death sentences, but who actually have the sentence carried out before they die of old age. As a percentage, it's rather low.

If you don't believe this would be any kind of deterrent, then you don't believe there's such a thing as a deterrent. It's really quite that simple.


And if that's what your rhetoric has descended to, then you've effectively declared an end to rational discussion of this subject. Just try telling a Holocaust survivor that what he went through is in any way comparable to being a prisoner in Maricopa County, and you'll get quite the education.

If you want to continue this tack, then say whatever you like. It will go unanswered.

Blackstone,

Whether or not you choose to post on this or any other thread is entirely within your discretion.

I stand by my assessment of Arpaio. I do not need a lecture from you, counselor.

As Edward R. Murrow used to say, "goodnight and good luck."

Isn't it really just a matter of degree though? Forcing a non-violent criminal to be seen in public with the handcuffs is for what purpose if not humiliation. They aren't exactly a flight risk in front of the CNN cameras and the world.