A Model for the rest of the Prisons? (in Off-topic)

"Sheriff Joe Arpaio created the 'tent city jail' to save Arizona from spending tens of millions of dollars on another expensive prison complex.

He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He banned smoking and pornographic magazines in the jails, and took away their weightlifting equipment and cut off all but 'G' movies. He says: 'They're in jail to pay a debt to society not to build muscles so they can assault innocent people when they leave.'


He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's money.


Then he started chain gangs for women so he wouldn't get sued for discrimination.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.

When asked why the weather channel, he replied: 'So these morons will know how hot it's gonna be while they are working on my chain gangs.' He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money. When the inmates complained, he told them, 'This isn't the Ritz/Carlton. If you don't like it, don't come back.' He also bought the Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history that he pipes into the jails. When asked by a reporter if he had any lecture series by a Democrat, he replied that a democratic lecture series that actually tells the truth for a change would be welcome and that it might even explain why 95% of the inmates were in his jails in the first place.

With temperatures being even hotter than usual in Phoenix (116 degrees just set a new record for June 2nd 2007), the Associated Press reported: About 2,000 inmates living in a barbed wire surrounded tent encampment at the Maricopa County Jail have been given permission to strip down to their government-issued pink boxer shorts.


On the Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were overheard chatting in the tents, where temperatures reached 128 degrees. 'This is hell. It feels like we live in a furnace,' said Ernesto Gonzales, an inmate for 2 years with 10 more to go. 'It's inhumane.' Joe Arpaio, who makes his prisoners wear pink, and eat bologna sandwiches, is not one bit sympathetic. 'Criminals should be punished for their crimes - not live in luxury until it's time for parole, only to go out and commit more crimes so they can come back in to live on taxpayers money and enjoy things many taxpayers can't afford to have for themselves.'

The same day he told all the inmates who were complaining of the heat in the tents: 'It's between 120 to 130 degrees in Iraq and our soldiers are living in tents too, and they have to walk all day in the sun, wearing full battle gear and get shot at, and they have not committed any crimes, so shut your damned mouths!'

Way to go, Sheriff! If all prisons were like yours there would be a lot less crime and we would not be in the current position of running out of prison spaces.


Sheriff Joe was just re-elected as Sheriff in Maricopa County, Arizona"
Joe Arpaio

IMHO he's even a bit too lenient.
And yes, it would be a good idea if more prisons went the same way.
However, the one thing I don't like about him is his over-reliance on religious worship, but I guess that's an "U.S.A. thing".

dude, this post should be removed.

i spent time in tent city and i ABSOLUTELY HATE JOE! HATE! HATE!
i dnt even want to get forum banned agian, but man i hate joe.

Will make you not want to go back Drudge? lol.

wrong.

Well, I like the way this sounds.

I've been saying the same thing for years.

Of course, I only know what's been written here.

two thumbs up!

Like he says, it's not the Hilton, don't like it, don't come back.

drudge, I'm with you..
This guy is an opinionated conservative, who parades his inmates around in florescent pink, and smirkingly admits the food that he feeds them costs less than his own pet's food. I've never liked his actions with drug enforcement, and I'll never like his little slave yard penitentiary he has going on in Arizona. This guy is a complete shmuck and I never thought I'd see him praised on CB.
This is not the solution to emptying America's prisons, not even close. ":|

Why do prisoners deserve more than injured (no longer able to work) and/or homeless people?

Wow. I can't believe you're all agreeing with this guy. Are you really that blind to think that PRISON is comparable to a resort hotel? My best friend's dad and uncle are in jail. And they describe it as hell.

I get it. Prisoners are criminals, but criminals are still PEOPLE. I can agree with some of the things on a small scale like maybe less channels on TV, but keeping people in tents outside in 120+ degrees seems inhumane, like Gonzales states.

Considering I feel that prison inmates should just get killed, this guy seems like a wonderful middle ground between what we have and what I want.

And Jokernaut, I don't consider prisoners "people". At least, not those who committed murder, rape, assault, or serious theft.

I'm down with treating prisoners like the scum of the earth, soon as it's only the scum of the earth in prison... With the current system, there are way too many people doing too much time for petty bullcrap, or even for stuff they didn't do (though this one is rarer, and has the net of the "justice" system to help prevent). Ya got people that stole food from their family doing more time than people robbing teenage girls on their way home for drug money in many cases. The entire system needs an overhaul. Prisons need to be tougher to live in, for sure. But they also need to evaluate the means that people get there and for how long.

food for* their family

Yeah, Borgin, maybe we can forget all the other crimes that people go to jail for, like I dunno... small time drug possession, which doesn't hurt anyone but the person doing it. Oh yeah, you can go to jail for being intimate someone a little younger than you if you're over 18. Do you know what counts as "assault?"? Me getting into a small fist fight with someone in my dorm. That would be assault.

My personal stance on drugs and statutory rape don't matter.

As far as assault goes... don't get into fights with people in your dorm. If you do, then that's assault.

Shrug.

Turn maximum security facilities into these kinds of things, and keep everything else the way it is (maybe take away a few things like extra TV channels and such). I don't know exactly what it takes to get into a maximum security prison, and it might need to be changed. But that'd be perfect, IMO.

Really punish people for serious crimes, like they should be punished.

OK, so if I happen to get into a fight with someone in my dorm, I deserve to be executed according to you, right?

"K, so if I happen to get into a fight with someone in my dorm, I deserve to be executed according to you, right?"

Depends, did you kill him? If you killed him and it's not Self Defense, then yes you could be executed.

Mikel, I was talking about assault, which you would have known if you had read the last few posts.

Jokernaut, I seriously doubt you would go to prison for getting in a tiff with a roommate.

But if you did... Well, you know how I feel.

The inhumane things like keeping them outside in +120 degree weather is a little too much, but i like all the other things. I think prisoners should have to pay off the price it costs to put them in jail, which is why i am for chain gangs and against them lifting weights all of their sentence.

Stupidity is a crime against humanity...

But with that said, I can hardly think of myself as any "better" than the worse of genocidal communist dictators. Perhaps under different conditions and by growing up in a much more vicious environment, any of us could have been that "inhuman" serial murderer or puppy kicker deserving of the death penalty. I am willing to go as far with the jail conditions as I'm personally willing to receive, should I make the same ill decisions those convicts made.

And all of the above seems perfectly reasonable to me, save for the brain-washing "Newt Gingrich lecture series on US history."

lol Borgin..
it's very possible for him to go to county lockup if he did that.. but there are no Joe's in county, so it's alright.

It's a good thing our justice system is infallible and nobody gets falsely imprisoned. Hoo boy, that'd sure be embarrassing.

Oh man, JS. I'm already embarrassed, I hope our system stays infallible! o_o

I'd rather see thousands wrongfully imprisoned (or, yes, even executed) if it could mean that crime rates drop like a rock.
Prisoners should be treated basically like slaves.
Well, not like "ancient Rome" slaves, but kind of "Tatooine Star Wars, Annakin-and-mother" kind of slaves.

Heck, (re-)introduce (high-tech) slavery, but based on criminal record alone, and grant the prisoners//slaves the opportunity to "buy back" their freedom through hard work.
At the same time, abolish the prison and mental health care system altogether : whoever is deemed acceptably fit for work of any kind (low risk of repeat offence) should be sent to work, whoever isn't should get the death penalty instead.

I'm sorry, but I really do have a hard time sympathizing with criminals of any kind.
You did something so wrong that you need to repay a debt to the society ? THEN PAY IT THROUGH HARD LABOR. When you're done, you're free.
Unable to pay through work ? Sorry, your life is forefit, you're just an unnecessary and unwanted burden on society otherwise.

Errors in the judicial system ?
People who worked can be compensated financially, and all they lost meanwhile is freedom to move around the country (which they wouldn't do anyway if they were in prison, heck, they would actually have it worse), the freedom to vote or socialize (ditto on that if in prison). I can see absolutely no downside, yet a lot of UPSIDES.
As for the ones given the death sentence due to inability to work or inability to ensure they won't go postal... well, we're better off without such people anyway.


Yes, I am a harsh, cold-hearted, ruthless one.

"As for the ones given the death sentence due to inability to work or inability to ensure they won't go postal... well, we're better off without such people anyway."
Great idea! Let's start executing anybody who's over 65. They're just leeches anyways. The world will be a better place.

I like his ideas but from reading the "other" materials about him and his "staff" on the wiki, it seems like they are a bit poisoned by power.

nice find smallpau1

>Considering I feel that prison inmates should just get killed, this guy seems like a wonderful middle ground between what we have and what I want.

this coming from the kid who is taking a pic of himself with his cell phone camera in a bathroom mirror.......... too young to have friends with cameras and too young to buy 1 beer. enough said.

Hardly worth posting, drudge.

If you're just going to flame people who have perfectly valid opinions because you don't like them, then keep it to yourself.

The problem with posting this sort of stuff, in general, is that you're always going to have somebody who refuses to accept anybody else's point(s) of view(s). In this case, my opinions are being cut down by two people, Jokernaut and drudge, on the grounds that one, my opinion is stupid and that I am an emo myspacer (says Jokernaut), and two, that I take pictures in front of mirrors and can't buy myself beer.

How either of those rebuttals to my thoughts is an acceptable one is beyond me.

Either we can have an intelligent argument/conversation, or we can act immaturely and insult peoples' thoughts based on their user picture.

I vote the former. Sadly, it seems some of you have already voted the latter.

Now grow up, CB.

>I like his ideas but from reading the "other" materials about him and his "staff" on the wiki, it seems like they are a bit poisoned by power.

oh man! dont get me started on the mcso's there! watch out! they are either physically inept for a real law enforcement gig (too small or too obese) or too stupid (all brawn no brain). most are awful people. prob pissed off this is their daily job. AND they take so much from prisoners there, they just do NOT like anyone they meet.

i had one particular mcso give me crap one visit. he slapped on the pink handcuffs and said my <un-pg> was his for the next 24hrs. i reminded him that after the 24 id never see him again and he'd have to come right back to this <un-pg>-hole. he called me a bunch of un-pg names and sent me to a smaller holding cell that must have been like 5x6 and it had at least 6 others in it. what a punk.

Borgin, let me ask you, at what point in this thread did you attempt to rationalize and explain your opinion?

Why is it you're expecting us to accept and converse about your opinion when you offer up statements like "all criminals should die" and leave it at that, yet you expect us to respect your opinion and your "maturity". Nice.

If you really want your prisoners executed maybe you need to move to a country that rules under traditional Islamic law.

This entire thread is inflammatory and ignorant.

Fear will never reduce crime rates. Only a secure social system will reduce crime.

>Now grow up, CB.

this coming from dude who said 3 hours ago that all prison inmates should be killed.

hes right tho, why should a shoplifter or someone who commits wire-fraud be given a chance to rehabilitate? prison isnt about rehabing people at all, its about keeping them there until we kill them.

"Great idea! Let's start executing anybody who's over 65. They're just leeches anyways. The world will be a better place."

Uh, great sarcastic comeback, but only when completely taken out of context.
The elderly have "paid forward" their dues towards society, and now it's the society's debt to be repaid to them.
In the case of criminals, they are the ones owing a moral debt towards society, which can only be repaid via work to be done from that moment onward only, in an activity and at a "payment rate" to be determined by "society" alone.
Think of it as a harsh conditions parole combined with community service on a much grander scale... it's not that different.
If there would only be a financial element involved, it would simply mean a get-out-of-jail-free card for the wealthy, which is even worse.

So, no, it's not even remotely the same.

I still think people should simply respect others' opinions on the grounds that they are just that, but alright.

There are plenty of positive effects to capital punishment. Let's ignore the massive political and judicial overhaul it would require to expedite the process and consider simply the ultimate effects.

Firstly, most people are afraid to die. Committing atrocities is certainly more difficult when you are constantly reminded that your own mortality is at stake. Look at Texas- the murder rate in 1991 was 15.3 (per 100,000). The death penalty was re-introduced in 1982, but was used rather aggressively during the mid-nineties, and by 1999, the murder rate in Texas dropped to 6.1 (per 100,000).

Secondly, there are plenty of crimes that occur within prison. Murdering prison guards and drug smuggling, along with serious gang activity, brutalizing other inmates, and homosexual hazings account for a majority of these crimes- many of which are clearly more serious than the crimes that some commit to get put into jail. Killing inmates for serious offenses would reduce the likelihood that these low-minded men would never get the chance to resume their crime sprees from the safety of their cells. Take Kenneth McDuff. He was originally going to be executed in the late 60's, but since prisons were full and the death penalty ruling was overturned, he was let loose back into the "real world" (some might argue this is more a problem with the red tape involved in the judicial process as opposed to the lack of capital punishment). He killed more than nine people before he was finally administered a lethal injection in late 1998.

Thirdly, there is the cliche that you "can't fight fire with fire". However, when it comes to violence, this is actually frequently not the case. Serious crimes tend to be committed by persons with certain personalities, namely those who have personality disorders. Antisocial personality disorders are the most common in murderers, for example. These sorts of people have no conscience, and typically brutalize, rape, and murder others without ever thinking about it, or feeling remorse later. Again, generally, these sorts of persons tend to turn a shoulder to reason and often refuse, or are completely unable, to look at things from somebody else's perspective. It's like arguing with a selfish two-year-old, but compounded infinitely by the fact that this "two-year-old" committed multiple premeditated murders. Like I said, reason is useless with them, and often, the only way to make them listen to anything is through serious threats or straight violence. These are the people nobody wants on the streets, and these are the people that deserve to die. Sorry to those of you who think these disorders are treatable, because as far as I know, they aren't (except in very minor cases).

Moreover, the idea that "violence doesn't solve anything" is as historically inaccurate as is the idea that the Holocaust never happened. Violence, while obviously brutish and occasionally unnecessary, will make even the most stubborn of mules grudgingly trod on. I think we can all acknowledge the barbaric effectiveness of violence.

Fourthly, many people claim capital punishment is "unconstitutional" (ethics will come later). Some claim it to be cruel and unusual; the Supreme Court has called it neither, and is now a Constitutionally acceptable remedy for severe criminal infractions. The fifth amendment states:

<i>"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."</i>

Nowhere is there any overt or even hidden disapproval of murdering criminals.

Fifthly, there are likely those of you who will say that capital punishment has already shown to occasionally murder innocent people. However, I will say that simply driving a car carries equally dire risks, and that in fact, car accidents have killed more innocent people than science has proven capital punishment to. Any law we set up carries risks with it, no less so with the death penalty. Yes, there have been a handful of wrongful executions, and I am embarrassed about that. However, even science has only shown that a total of FOURTEEN prisoners on death row were innocent (these inmates were not actually killed and were released). Furthermore, the number of wrongful executions, while basically impossible to quantify accurately, has been estimated to be a lowly 23. Compared to the thousands of innocent people who are murdered by criminals, this number seems much more bearable. Add the fact that no executed prisoner has later been found innocent beyond a reasonable doubt, and you have a grossly mis-interpreted "fact" blown out of proportion to the point of becoming mainstream.

Hopefully this ends my tirade as an "emo myspacer". If any of my thoughts are unclear, I am happy to clarify.

"Fear will never reduce crime rates. Only a secure social system will reduce crime. "

I beg to differ.
A VERY LARGE number of crimes are commited by a very small percentage of criminals.
Statistics are a fickle thing, but as a rule of thumb, it appears that around 5% of the convicted criminals commit up to 66% of the crimes in the USA, and around 10% are responsable for over 80% of them.

Going to prison is obviously not doing anything to "rehabilitate" them, and most of them are not even afraid to go to prison in the first place, frequently commiting additional crimes not very far away from the start of their paroles.
FEAR would be the ONLY thing that would actually work on such people, and it would actually work quite well.

You only need to take a back look at history and see a trend of harsh punishments yielding lower crime rates, and lenient or neglijent systems encouraging higher crime rates with worrying certainty.

"Hopefully this ends my tirade as an "emo myspacer". If any of my thoughts are unclear, I am happy to clarify."

Actually your use of unfounded pop psychology made it a bit worse. You have no grasp of real societal issues. Nor do you have any idea the kinds of prisoners that fill prisons. The majority of prisoners are in on small offences doing terms of 3 months to a year. Many that enter prison never commit a crime again. Some end up in prisons due to circumstance and no other option but turning to crime to survive. You obviously do not know anyone in prison and have never been there yourself. Making assumptions that sound like the Fox news excitement hour merely make you sound silly.

I wonder how many inmates have died in tent city? I would bet some where because of the dangerous heat. I would suspect due to money saved the details on this matter would not be as clear as in other areas.
I am not soft but i feel that this wonderful country that we live in ( that is serious ) is flawed with a far from wonderful police force and court system. Some states have harsh sentences for minor crimes.
All in all, you can treat prisoners how you want in perfect society, however we know this isn't one so until then, lets be fair.
This is all my opinion, so please don't reply as if i am stating this as fact. These are all opinions.

"Uh, great sarcastic comeback, but only when completely taken out of context.
The elderly have 'paid forward' their dues towards society, and now it's the society's debt to be repaid to them. In the case of criminals, they are the ones owing a moral debt towards society, which can only be repaid via work to be done from that moment onward only, in an activity and at a 'payment rate' to be determined by 'society' alone."

It seems to me that you're the one taking things out of context. See below.

"People who worked can be compensated financially, and all they lost meanwhile is freedom to move around the country (which they wouldn't do anyway if they were in prison, heck, they would actually have it worse), the freedom to vote or socialize (ditto on that if in prison). I can see absolutely no downside, yet a lot of UPSIDES.
As for the ones given the death sentence due to inability to work or inability to ensure they won't go postal... well, we're better off without such people anyway."

You were speaking in the context of wrongfully-incarcerated prisoners. The last sentence conveys the thought, "Oh, who cares about the innocent people who can't work? They'll be killed, but it doesn't matter, since we're better off without them anyways." So if these innocents don't matter, why do the rest of those who are unable to work? Are they acceptable losses because of reduced crime rates? If people can be sacrificed for societal benefit, what about the disabled? The mentally unfit? Should they be killed as well? Has a 20-year-old person who has a spinal-cord injury paid his debt in advance? 30? 40? How much revenue must people earn before the cost it takes to support them from that point on outweighs the amount generated during their lifetimes? Are people paralyzed from car accidents more deserving than people crippled attempting daredevilry? Shot in the spine while serving in the armed forces? Where do you draw the line?

JS:

Personally, I draw the line whenever a person stops being able to contribute back to society, excluding retirees. I know I'd want to be killed if I ever get to the point where I can't take care of myself, because my only hope is that some day I can give back to the world and try to make it a little bit better, somehow. If that opportunity is stricken from me, I would honestly want to die.

I would imagine many other people feel the same way, and ultimately I feel it is the most intelligent position. Those persons who would want to stay alive even when turned into vegetables are selfish, methinks.

"Many that enter prison never commit a crime again."

Please cite where you obtained your facts. I'm not arguing for or against either side, but I'd like to see arguments backed by real numbers.

So if someone walked up to you, snapped your neck, and ran off, you'd ask to be killed? I highly doubt that. What about those who don't need mobility? Composers? Writers? Philosophers? Would you kill off Stephen Hawking? What if he was just a bit less intelligent? How do you objectively judge "benefitting society?"

I second Flatcap on his prior and future posts in this thread, and I thank him for being so reasonable as well as realistic.

Flatcap wrote:

"Actually your use of unfounded pop psychology made it a bit worse. You have no grasp of real societal issues. Nor do you have any idea the kinds of prisoners that fill prisons. The majority of prisoners are in on small offences doing terms of 3 months to a year. Many that enter prison never commit a crime again. Some end up in prisons due to circumstance and no other option but turning to crime to survive. You obviously do not know anyone in prison and have never been there yourself. Making assumptions that sound like the Fox news excitement hour merely make you sound silly."

First off, I never used any "unfounded pop psychology". All my information is factual and found on .gov and .org websites, and the .org sites were NOT pro-capital punishment ones.

Second, saying I have "no grasp of societal issues" is just flaming. I certainly have no grasp of issues involving prison, because I am not the sort to ever be sent there, but apparently you are, because you're being overly condescending.

Third, you said "The majority of prisoners are in on small offences doing terms of 3 months to a year. Many that enter prison never commit a crime again." Every source I could find said exactly the contrary. Like Sickone said, 80% of the crime is done by 10% of the criminals. That's basically what I found on the four websites I checked out.

Fourth, you said "You obviously do not know anyone in prison and have never been there yourself." You are correct; however, does one have to be a psychologist to understand some basic psychology? Does one have to go into the rainforest to know what it's like? You seem to think accounts of prison don't exist, and that any information about them found anywhere outside of the source itself is bunk.

Making the assumption that all my information is an assumption is quite obviously the more egregious error. Now please stand back and stop attacking me for the sake of attacking me.

Beyond the flame, though, I appreciate the thoughts.

JS: Again, from a personal standpoint, I would want to die. The deep feeling of despair I know I would feel from losing mobility would be enough to make me either starve myself to death, or ask someone else to do it for me.

However, I realize it's typically up to the individual. I just hate to see people like Schiavo kept alive. It both isn't fair to them (is that really how you want your family to remember you?), and it isn't fair to us (why should we pay to keep you alive?).

And since it isn't up to me... well, I'll just accept the way things are currently, and write my own living will (which I have already done).

"Please cite where you obtained your facts. I'm not arguing for or against either side, but I'd like to see arguments backed by real numbers." http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t668.pdf http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t600182006.pdf It only lists federal and parole returning to prison but you get the point. Less than 20% http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/

* "Are they acceptable losses because of reduced crime rates?"

Absolutely YES.


* "So if someone walked up to you, snapped your neck, and ran off, you'd ask to be killed?"

If you're asking me wether I'd personally prefer to live the rest of my life as a full-body-paralysis patient or die right then and there, I'll take death, thank you very much.
And that coming from a person who doesn't even believe in an afterlife, but has had his fair share of quality-of-life affecting afflictions.

* "Would you kill off Stephen Hawking? What if he was just a bit less intelligent? How do you objectively judge "benefitting society?" "

You're using Stephen Hawking as if he actually did anything so groundbreakingly remarkable that the world would be actually be a much better place than without him.
Yes, granted, he did have a lot of insights into a good deal of things, but compared to other scientists in history, he barely flickers against the shining light of the likes of Archimedes, Newton, Edison, Nobel or Einstein, to name but a few resounding figureheads.
And not even THEIR work was completely and utterly groundbreaking, but rather a small skip in the plodding of scientific progress.

You have to have a certain stealth type of arrogance to believe one CERTAIN man can actually make a difference, a difference no other man could have eventually made.
Sure, maybe not that soon, and maybe not that clearly, but in the end, SOMEBODY would have come up with SOMETHING remarkably similar, eventually.



Now, back on track.
And this is the actual issue...

* "It seems to me that you're the one taking things out of context. See below."

I'm not taking anything out of context.
I'm talking about the life of an individual who was PROVEN to have (or at least, we have a high degree of confidence in thinking he has) commited a serious CRIME, and is UNABLE to pay back the moral debt of his crime to the society.
You're talking about people born with or that have developed a serious handicap during their lifetime, but never actually commited any crime.


So... kill off Stephen Hawking for no reason ?
DUUH, NO !
But, would he pay off a hitman to murder a fellow scientist because he disagrees with one of his theoreies ?
Heck, in that case, kill Stephen Hawking off, instantly, not even think about it.

Sickone states:

"I'd rather see thousands wrongfully imprisoned (or, yes, even executed) if it could mean that crime rates drop like a rock"

If you really believe this (and I am fully aware this will be a rant on my part, here goes!), then you are a horribly misled human being, and I hope nothing more than than that you get to face your own "justice" in the future.

Shame on you.

You would RATHER see THOUSANDS _wrongfully_ imprisoned or DEAD_DEAD_DEAD if it couldCOULD_could_ohmygodyoumoron_CCOOUULLDD mean crime rates drop like a rock!!!???

I am (for one, naively hoping for more?) entirely done with you if you even remotely believe this. I have never seen such a stupid statement made anywhere in this game, and I'm the guy who even loves being cut by a rusty SCISOR from time to time.

I have never heard such asinine, infantile garbage, even distributed as opinion.

Forum ban me forever, I couldn't care less. How anyone can sit there and listen to this without throwing up in his or her mouth a little bit...my god, I can't even envision it!

I take too long to write, missed the best post yet...

I hadn't seen you live up to your main username till now, sickone.

You really are a blight. I can't even believe it. And to name fellows like Archimedes in your post... Like you know the truth of them? How great or how evil they actually were?

I'm probably so worked up because you remind me of the way I could tend to be when young. Man, that sucks.

The Chinese had it close by ironically wishing one to live in "interesting times"... I just hope you live in times draconically enforced by your own rules. You wouldn't last long...

...come to think you'd probably already be dead. Or punched, or sped over, or deceived, or betrayed, or lied to, or guilt-ridden. Or blind. Or toothless. You know, eye for an eye, tooth for a...ah, like you care. Smeg off.

"You're using Stephen Hawking as if he actually did anything so groundbreakingly remarkable that the world would be actually be a much better place than without him. "

Oh man I don't even know where to start on this statement. Read his bio before you make a statement like that.

Hm. Sut, I for one am very much opposed to the idea that the end justifies the means. But I guess I can't express how entirely stupid I think the opinion is without "flaming" or "trolling".

sut: To some extent, I agree with you. I am definitely not for wrongful imprisonment, especially when I think that I could be one of those "necessary evils".

Be that as it may, I can see what Sickone is trying to get at. While I would rather just not have crime or wrongful imprisonment, I surely think a 0% crime rate is the more important and desirable goal.

Jokernaut, I haven't seen a real "end" nor "means" yet, from anyone. Furthermore, I am neither flaming nor trolling.

Am I misreading your post?

The end of mass murdering criminals does not justify the potential for lower crime rate, in my opinion. And no, I'm not talking about you. I was talking about myself. Borgin just keeps saying in chat how no one explains why his opinion is wrong and that I'm one of the people who flame him.

It appears there is no good way to expose one's opinion on the matter without flaming. I feel like I am the only one making an effort to keep from insulting others. Maybe I am. Hell, I hope that I am, because if anyone else IS trying, it's such a pathetic attempt that I'd simply rather they didn't.

Saying someone is wrong isn't the way to get them to change their opinions. Suppress your gag reflex and swallow the little bit of throw-up. Then try to reason with the rest of us cretins like intelligent humans.

I am not opposed to changing my views. I have certainly modified them thanks to Jokernaut, as I made a rather serious omission in my first post which I believe I have since rectified. But having someone stomp in and say things that are nothing but garbage (or flames) certainly do not advocate a mentally-stimulating environment conducive to a moderate discussion.

I agree with Sut. I was going to post a similar rant aimed at Sick One's ignorance earlier, but I held my tongue out of fear of the mighty forum ban.

Glad to see you had the courage to do it Sut.

@ Jokernaut: I have no illusions about why my opinions are wrong, I simply feel that the pros outweigh the cons. The way I would say it is that life is sacred, and capital punishment against the most serious of crimes (rape, premeditated or multiple murder(s), extensive browbeating/blackmail/extortion, torture, et cetera) is, in my opinion, the best way to show just how important life really is. The people who break the sanctity of life gets theirs taken away. An eye for an eye, in some loose sense.

However, it does not seem you are trying to get me to change my opinions, you seem to only be trying to get me to slip up and get me chided or forum banned by an admin. Besides your very first post, in which you say that prisoners are people (which I already said I disagreed with, and explained why), all your posts have been devoid of any intelligent thought. You've just been trying to intimidate the people who don't agree with you, namely me.

The real question I would like answered is, has he lowered the crime rate, saved taxpayers money, and helped aid prisoners in bettering themselves so that when their debt has been paid, they can contribute positively in society?

Those "ends" in my mind, would justify his "means". Otherwise, it is just a guy with power, degrading those that are already low on the totem pole so-to-speak.

A man's power is not in putting others down (especially when they are already down), but in building and lifting them up. To inspire these criminals to move beyond their present circumstance and realize their potential would be laudable in my opinion.

Anyone can kick a dog when it's down. Why should he be commended for legally albeit inhumanely treating people that way?

Planet Earth, population soon 7 BILLION people.

Almost 70 MILLION human beings die every year.
That's almost two hundred thousands every DAY.
133 people a MINUTE. More than two people every SECOND.

The LOWEST yearly count of murder victims in the USA has been 15,522 (in 1999), with 17,034 confirmed murders in 2006.
Rape, closer to one hundred thousand cases each year.
Roughly ONE AND A HALF MILLION violent crimes every year in the USA.

Wipe out the 10% of criminals that generate the 80% of crimes, reduce those numbers to ONE FIFTH.
That's 12 thousands murders a year no longer happening, 80 thousand rapes no longer occuring, WELL OVER ONE MILLION violent crimes averted.
And all of this for what ? The OFF CHANCE that you MIGHT acidentally murder FIVE or TEN, even a HUNDRED, or god forbid, a THOUSAND people a year ?

Roughly forty thousand people die in car accidents every year in the USA alone.
At least a tenth are innocent bystanders.


I rest my case.
Numbers speak louder than words.
Would you have the stomach to risk willingly sacrificing one innocent man to save the life of THOUSANDS ?
I sure would.
And to call me a lesser human being for that... how would you call the people at the head of the military then ?

Borg, good point.

However, I am not the one who made the point I quoted.

Read what sickone wrote, and then tell me what I should ask him? What reasoning should I attempt to divine for a concept so foreign just in phonetics alone that I am apoplectic with bewilderment?

What if I wrote this:

"If people like Disney, and put up with all of their commercialist crap, even worship it, then their babies should burn in Hell and their DNA be forever rid from this planet"?

Hypothetically. Would you reason with me? Try to instantly pierce that incendiary statement to find common ground? Or would you call me out first, saying, "Bad, Sutekh!" and then maybe try to reach me?

My comment is actually pretty tame compared to sickone's directive of THOUSANDS of people being incarcerated (even killed) for the chance (the CHANCE!) that crime rates dropped. Is it inappropriate?

And don't worry, you'll never catch me using the "f" word. I don't think I've ever called out flames or trolls since I've been here. Hiding in that rhetoric is for the weak, in my opinion. I'd rather just flame or troll right back (I hear it's fun, if nothing else *smile*).

Borg, to put a bumper sticker on your policy, you are saying that we should kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong (or something else? I am open to what you think the end result/conclusion of capital punishment is...)

Sickone, I'll pick apart your numbers later. At least you aren't just vomiting incendiary nonsense any more. Hey, victory.

@ Sickone: While I originally agreed with you, it seems you're losing sight of what's ultimately the most valuable thing here: human life. A "sacrifice" is somebody who willingly gives themselves up for a greater good. What you're asking for is slaughter.

@ sut: 100% agreed. =] I just wish we could "argue" like adults. Seems like some of us think the CB forums are a life-or-death situation. To quote xkcd, "Somebody on the internet is wrong." ;)

You're assuming that it would be a "chance" the crime rates would drop.
I am absolutely CERTAIN the crime rates will drop.
The vast majority of crimes will be commited by people that get away today with "temporary insanity" or reduced penalties for mitigating circumstances.
Premeditated, violent crime will all but cease existing.

And again @ sut: I know it seems rather contradictory, but by placing the highest value on human life, it seems natural (to me, at least) that we are obliged to kill those who break this highest rule. I know, I know. Most people just won't agree with me. But by letting prisoners remain alive, they have the potential to simply do it again.

I'm not saying we should kill everybody who hurts another human being, but we should certainly be killing murders with APD, BPD, rapists, molesters, mass murderers, hitmen/assassins, and the like.

Wait, that was easier than I thought... sickone, you forgot the most important part of "eye for an eye" -- the crimes have to be the same. You mix murder and rape together. And say all rapists/murderers deserve to die...

Well, that doesn't fit the crime does it? Even by your standards? Murder=15,000, rape, more like ~100,000. You already added an order of magnitude to try to make your point. Orders of magnitude, powers of ten...dammit, if a scientist were around he might be able to help -- too bad that useless Hawing was put to death on a statutory quadri-charge...he talked down to a little girl trying to explain what a limit was -- she though he was asking how old she was... Poor bastard, lambda'd to death.

Well, anyway, keep up with the faux math and hate-speech! Rah Rah! You might could even start a church, providin' you find the right congregation. I hear tents help. It's the shade. The shade helps.

Sut, I don't think I understand a word of that post...

Borgin, yeah, I completely deviated from the original point, becoming a bit too infamed by the comments below, and brought the "logic" to an absurd, extreme case which I argued that even if completely unreasonable, it would still be more acceptable than the situation we would have now.

OF COURSE I'm NOT advocating a Judge Dread-esque course of action, and of course the actual cases where people would have to be put to death would be the exception, not the rule (i.e. mass murderers, unrepenting repeat violent crime offenders and so on and so forth), and in most cases, the "punishment" (i.e. enforced community service on top of civil liberties suspension, combined with high-tech privacy-invasive surveillance) would be milder than actually serving time in today's prisons in the first place.

Calling all (less sleepy) googlers who care...

I've always been told (and even read some stuff, just am too tired to look now) that in places with capital punishment, it has been shows that violent crime is no less than places without the death penalty...

Since sickone is "Certain" that such a policy would work, maybe if it can be shown that is not the case, he will recant?

See? Not trying to flame or troll! Really!

sickone, if studies have shown that capital punishment has no decidedly dramatic effect on violent crime, will you at least reconsider?

Borg, the post wasn't at you, and assure you it made perfect sense. *smile*

^I know that's true, but I don't know where to find the statistics on it.

Basically, I'm saying that people who are beyond redemption (i.e. proven to be unreformable) should no longer be dead weights, but everybody gets the chance to prove he can be redeemed... through contributions to the society.
Not in prison, but as "free" workforce.

What I'm saying is that the prison system does nothing to redeem criminals, but actually creates a social strata of hardened criminals instead.
Putting criminals together in some building will do nothing good.

You have to give them a chance to prove they can do good things (under much stricter supervision), but if they fail to prove that and keep repeating to "do crimes", the only logical remaiing punishment is death - if you can't trust a person enouh to put it back on the streets, you have the moral obligation towards society to eliminate the threat, once and for all.

And, with milder punishments (modern high-tech limited form of slavery) for first and/or mild offenders, but much harsher punishments (death) for serious/repeat offenders, you will automatically have a much lower crime rate... if by no other means, then through simple Darwinian selection.

Actually, the information I found (admittedly, I purposely found information towards my goal) said that an increase in capital punishment led to a decreased murder rate...

Although, like I said, I'm sure if you're looking for any type of information, you'll find it. It's pretty tough to figure out what's the truth at this point, isn't it?

"sickone, if studies have shown that capital punishment has no decidedly dramatic effect on violent crime, will you at least reconsider? "

IF you can find such evidence, and if that evidence is statisticaly significant, I will IMMEDIATELY reconsider.
However, have a pre-emptive strike from me...

"In 1963 the US Supreme Court imposed rules on confessions & searches that accompanied a popular sentiment increasingly opposed to capital punishment -- and in 1972 struck down capital punishment laws as being "arbitrary and capricious". There were no executions in the United States between 1967 and 1977. Murder rates soared to levels not seen since the 1930s and remained at that level until the late 1970s when sentiment changed and execution began to be increasingly reinstated. As executions rose, the murder rate declined through the 1990s."

Interesting. As you say, "statistically significant". Your "shot across the bow covers TEN YEARS during an economic and energy crisis.

Murders soared?

Crazy.

I'll back up -- give me something statistically relevant that proves your point... And bear in mind your own language (which you seem to be running from the more inflammatory bits as the battle of wits wages, interesting that!).

So, your point, in case you forgot: "Premeditated, violent crime, will all but cease existing" if we get more capital punishment.

Show me.

Does Capital Punishment Have a Deterrent Effect? New Evidence from Post-Moratorium Panel Data
"Our results suggest that capital punishment has a strong deterrent effect; each execution results, on average, in 18 fewer murders......"

Prison Conditions, Capital Punishment, and Deterrence
"Using state-level panel data covering the period 1950ﾖ90, we demonstrate that the death rate among prisoners (the best available proxy for prison conditions) is negatively correlated with crime rates, consistent with deterrence. This finding is shown to be quite robust. In contrast, there is little systematic evidence that the execution rate influences crime rates in this time period."

The Deterrent Effect of Capital Punishment: Evidence from a "Judicial Experiment"
"Results suggest that capital punishment has a deterrent effect, and that executions have a distinct effect which compounds the deterrent effect of merely (re)instating the death penalty. The finding is robust across 96 regression models.

The first and third suggest a negative correlation between crime rates and capital punishment. The second finds no correlation between crime and capital punishment but finds a link between harsh prison conditions and lower crime rates.

To be fair there are many more studies than this, some suggesting a link, others not. These appear to be the most widely cited though.

Sickone and borgin said:

Blah blah blah blah blah blah kill everyone with disabilities blah blah blah blah I'm better than anyone who is in any way disabled blah blah blah blah blah.....
You get my point...

Wow... I'm sure there are hundreds of thousands of disabled people who have accomplished more than you will ever amount to in society... What makes you two so important eh? I'll tell you what. Absolutely nothing. You are not important. Your opinions do not matter. Nobody cares what you think. And from what you are saying, nobody WILL ever care what you think. Stop being ignorant and selfish morons and grow up. Put yourself in someone else's position who maybe made a split second mistake in a situation where they were cornered in one way or another. Or maybe, put yourself in someone's position who has been screwed over at birth, like my brother for example. My brother has autism. He is socially disabled. He will probably always be socially disabled. However, I can guarantee you that he will never be as socially disabled as you two.
To be honest, you guys actually remind me of Hitler. "Oh let's go kill everyone who could possibly be a 'burden' on society for the greater good... blah blah blah..."

After hearing you two talk like, I feel like puking. I'm actually embarrassed to be of the same species of you.

Well, I for one think this thread is in dire need of a forum lock.

By the by, I live in a death penalty state with a Gov that supports the death penalty. Fifty-four (estimated) folks on death row.

And also by the by, (http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?did=169) murder rates per 100,000 people in MO, from 2006 on back to 1996:

Missouri 6.3 6.9 6.2 5.0 5.8 6.6 6.2 6.6 7.3 7.9 8.1

Some ups and downs there.

A state without the death penalty statute (stats from same web site) in the same range? Here that is:

Iowa 1.8 1.3 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.7 1.6 1.5 1.9 1.8 1.9

Weird. It's...almost as if...well, that the death penalty statute has...gosh, could it be...nothing at all to do with murder rates? Like, maybe it has more to do with, um, population density and such?

Cool fact, sacredpeanut, will definitely read tomorrow... So why does IA (a non death penalty statute state) have a lower murder pure 100K rate (by a LOT) than a death penalty state like MO?

Like I said, I will read more tomorrow, maybe the articles explain that...

Another shining example of how people decide to flame instead of actually make constructive arguments.

*sigh*

Will someone please read my longest post? Nobody has commented on it yet, and it seems that everybody simply says that I'm an idiot/communist/bad Richard Simmons impersonator.

sut: I'm sure there's a lot of sociological factors besides just the few we've talked about. So yes, you're certainly right, but since there's a billion factors out there (exaggerating, naturally), it's very hard to make a solid guess on these things.

Like I said, it's hard to determine the truth.

Cursory glance, sacredpeanut's posts, while some are a bit older (not much, maybe 5 years), there is some neat stuff there... I need to go to bed and just read it tomorrow, but there are graphs and everything that are much more interesting than say, Koy's greatness or Battle Royale's clan domination. *smile*

Dang, to much to read, all I see is a back and forth arguement, so im just going to say I agree with almost everything Joe is doing here. Criminals do not deserve anything more then a place to sleep,wash themselves and food.

Ya'll are sick.

*walks away from forums*

"So, your point, in case you forgot: "Premeditated, violent crime, will all but cease existing" if we get more capital punishment. Show me. "

First off, it's not JUST the capital punishment, it's the complete reformation of the punishment system.
The capital punishment is an important FINAL step in all of that.
But it's very important that it is the final, not first step.

And the "why" ?
A simple matter of logical inference.

A certain number of violent crimes of all kind are unavoidable, no matter what system you use (mental instability, irreconciliable violent temper and so on and so forth).
That one can't possibly be helped 100% before it happens, but it certainly can be prevented from happening a second time around.

A small number of criminals commit a vast majority of crimes, this is an undisputed fact.
The prison system itself is a major contributor in that, since instead of trying to actually give prisoners a serious chance to reform, you're just basically keeping them locked up under strict supervision.
By slowly escalating punishment WHILE keeping people out of prison (you give them both the opportunity to redeem themselves, but you ALSO give them the opportunity to commit more crimes, however there's a highly increased chance of catching them) you reinforce both the notions that "crime does not pay" and "almost anybody can be redeemed through hard work and good behaviour", which are both sadly sorely lacking right now.

And by not shying back from executing repeat offenders, you send a strong statement that you're not afraid to put away for good those who are unwilling (or unable) to reform.


Lower motivation to become a hardened criminal (being forced to do hard, "honest" work is actually a nastier penalty than incarceration for those predisposed towards crime), milder punishment for minor crimes, LONGER but still mild punishment for moderate crimes, long and stricter punisment for serious firt-offense crimes, higher social interaction throughout the rehabilitation process at the expense of civil rights, all motivating criminals to not fall back on "old habits", and a very, VERY nasty punishment as a CERTAINTY if they keep repeating their mistakes (no matter how minor the crime, enough strikes and you're out for good either way, a lot more strikes, but a limited number nevertheless) ensures a HIGH DEGREE of compliance.

So, yeah, short of stupid people that simply can't "take a hint" and people who just can't help themselves, slowly but surely, VIOLENT crimes should all but cease happening sooner rather than later.

Looks like you've got it all figured out, dude. Now you just need to run for political office and get elected. More power to you.

"Cool fact, sacredpeanut, will definitely read tomorrow... So why does IA (a non death penalty statute state) have a lower murder pure 100K rate (by a LOT) than a death penalty state like MO?

Like I said, I will read more tomorrow, maybe the articles explain that... "

Sut - for the record, I'm against the death penalty, however I do believe there is a minor deterrant effect associated with capital punishment. Certainly I don't believe that "violent crime would all but cease to exist" if capital punishment laws were toughened and broadened to other crimes like rape and manslaughter for example, but it does definitely appear to have some impact.

As for why one state might have a significantly higher murder rate than another despite having the death penalty, there are numerous other variables that explain variations in death rates - for example population density (as you pointed out), the average age of the population, drug possession rates and socio-economic factors such as income levels, income inequality levels, literacy rates, number of years of schooling (which ironically is positively associated with homicide rates) etc.

Studies try to account for all these variables in order to determine whether the variable in question, capital punishment, has an impact on crime rate, independent of all other factors.

The studies you link to are a cut above the rest...I look forward to reading them tomorrow! Good points all around...

Unfortunately you won't be able to read the full papers without a subscription to the journals.

"I'm saying that people who are beyond redemption (i.e. proven to be unreformable) should no longer be dead weights"

Sorry, but executions cost more at least for now with the current system.


http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/article.php?scid=12&did=168#stateswithvwithout

I agree that doing it by state doesn't really show the effects for each state
individually, as it could simply be showing that places with high crime rate
like to implement the death penalty, but I thought I'd just throw it out there.


And as for Eugenics no one is seriously arguing that right? I mean I agree with
the right to die and all, but not forcibly. I can't really tell from everyone's
posts... but no one is really arguing that are they?

* Lochnivar savours the irony of a person supporting harsh consequences is offended by the consequences of that policy

"By mid-year 2007, more than $50 million in claims had been filed against the sheriffs office and Maricopa County.

Furthermore, in a 1998 Arpaio commissioned study, Arizona State University Criminal Justice professor Marie L. Griffin found that Arpaio's policies did nothing to reduce recidivism in the Maricopa County facilities compared to his predecessor: "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995.""

(Yes, that's from wikipedia, I'm not writing a paper on this; so shoot me, certainly would go along with some of the crazy policies suggested in this thread)

Since I'm a latecomer to the thread, as for praise for this warden, are you people serious? After all that crap thats there simply to bolster his maniacal ego. Saving money by not building a real prison? Yeah right; 50 million in lawsuits. And comparing inmates to soldiers? Inmates - living conditions. Soldiers - working conditions. I'm sure it sucks for them too, but soldiers volunteer. (Yes, stop loss program is a whole different story, but that's wrong too) People like this implementing ridiculous media-hungry policies that don't do anything make me sick.

"Sorry, but executions cost more at least for now with the current system."

Firing squads are dirt cheap.

It's not the cost of the execution itself; it's the litigation.

Cubic, 1:01 AM EDT
"By mid-year 2007, more than $50 million in claims had been filed against the sheriffs office and Maricopa County.

Furthermore, in a 1998 Arpaio commissioned study, Arizona State University Criminal Justice professor Marie L. Griffin found that Arpaio's policies did nothing to reduce recidivism in the Maricopa County facilities compared to his predecessor: "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989-1990 and those released in 1994-1995.""

(Yes, that's from wikipedia, I'm not writing a paper on this; so shoot me, certainly would go along with some of the crazy policies suggested in this thread)

Since I'm a latecomer to the thread, as for praise for this warden, are you people serious? After all that crap thats there simply to bolster his maniacal ego. Saving money by not building a real prison? Yeah right; 50 million in lawsuits. And comparing inmates to soldiers? Inmates - living conditions. Soldiers - working conditions. I'm sure it sucks for them too, but soldiers volunteer. (Yes, stop loss program is a whole different story, but that's wrong too) People like this implementing ridiculous media-hungry policies that don't do anything make me sick.

------------------------------------------------

50 million in suits, just for that jail, what about the others? I'd like to see the inmates lawsuit totals for other jails as well, have anymore?

I bet plenty of inmates bring about lawsuits about how they only received 2 saltine crackers instead of 3, just to get out of the prisons for a few days. Doesn't matter what jail it is, there's going to be lawsuits...

Oh, and welcome back Brandon, i dont remember seeing a post in over a year from you until this thread, but i see you came back around June 17th, lol.

How could this thread possibly have gone this far? How could noone have said "This guy is sick." and had everyone else agree and walk away? The amount of freedom people are willing to give up (and not even their own freedom, no less!) in return for "security" will never cease to astound me.

Couldn't find that, but I found this.

"Arizona

Statutes 12-302, 41-1604.07 (1994) require inmates to pay filing fees and/or court costs in civil cases, protects the state from inmate injuries, allows the Attorney General to decide if inmate cases are frivolous, and permits revocation of an inmate's earned release credits if he or she has abused the process."

Forgot to mention many of the lawsuits filed were filed on behalf on the inmates.

I would be delighted to see some of the people justifying poor treatment of other human beings in tent city for stealing cable, maybe someone elses wireless. Maybe a little possession of cannabis. How about a little manslaughter as a result of a good old fashioned american brawl...... Spend some pleasant time in tent city.

Thank you Badfish!!! (Sorry for the triple post)

I can't believe how many people can go along with this? You want your prisons run like a circus? It's a prison, they still have to live there; not everyone in prison is a bloodsucking murderer covered in gang signs ready to get back on the street in a few days to 'shoot up the stupid pigs with their homies'. Hell, normal people can end up in prison all the time. Everyone just thinks this way from glorification from movies and everything. I'm not saying those people don't exist, but you have to be able to make a fair assessment by realizing that that's not everyone is like they're in a stupid prison movie.

It's an institution that serves a simple purpose. It's not to make their lives a living hell; it may not be nice in there, but that's not the purpose. Separating people who commit crimes and deterring them from committing more. The warden thinks he's on a tv or something it's ridiculous. "I'm going to make them wear all pink LOL won't they hate it?!?!? Oh damn look how hot it is outside, too bad for those no good rapists". This effects real people like you and me, who could easily end up in a bad situation! It's not a joke, this guy is a lunatic. If some warden tried to make your life a living hell, you'd be pissed you wouldn't be "corrected". It's all just a showboat playing to this guy's ego.

When you think of prison conditions, imagine living in there then let's see you talk. Maybe I just have a better imagination than you, but some warden trying to make your life as horrible and cheap as possible wouldn't motivate me to "straighten up and fly right".

I simply can't put it better than Badfish did.
"This guy is sick"

I know it's been said, but I stopped reading this before I even got halfway through the thread. It made me pissed and sickened at the same time. I hope more than a few of you live far far away from me.

While i do think this guy is crazy you cant think these things are bad, can you?



He started chain gangs to use the inmates to do free work on county and city projects and save taxpayer's money.

He has jail meals down to 20 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.

He took away cable TV until he found out there was a federal court order that required cable TV for jails. So he hooked up the cable TV again but only allows the Disney channel and the weather channel.

He cut off coffee because it has zero nutritional value and is therefore a waste of taxpayer money.



If there are people here who truly think these things are wrong then you should try living poor in America, these actions cause no harm to the inmates, and save tax payers money, and like the article says it might actually help to lower crime rate.

AG: I do agree, however your viewpoint mainly deals with the injustice of the quality-of-life of the poor in America, not the conditions of the tent city.
It is atrocious that there are people so poor they can't afford many of the things we take for granted, like food/shelter/heat/clothing. It's so atrocious that not even prisoners should be subjected to that.

Yah BF i do think it is crazy he did that stuff in tent city, i think he had a good idea in its basis, but went a little crazy somewhere along the line.

They are being given food, shelter and clothing...
... not of a a very high quality, but food, shelter & clothing nonetheless.

Anyway, while I have foolishly chosen to enter this conversation:

1) the incarceration rate in the US is a bigger problem than what is done with them... nobody (almost) puts as many of their people behind bars as the US and I think we can agree jailing folks has done wonders for crime rates.

2) I personally don't find it that objectionable that prisoners are denied some luxury goods (like coffee)... they are in PRISON

3) The argument that 'we should be nice to prisoners because there are some innocent people in jail' is smoke and mirrors in my opinion. The issue of imprisoning people is a factor of the justice system... the prison operators have to rather take on trust that they are sent people in need of reforming.

4) Attempting to offset costs to tax payers is a good thing. Low income familys scraping by on bologna and Kraft Dinner while the pay taxes to feed convicts chicken and veggies is pretty hard to substantiate as 'fair'.

Ah heck... I know I shouldn't get into forum thread... let me finish up.

To those of you who say 'he is sick and wrong'...
No, he isn't.. some of his more extreme notions are unpalatable to you but he isn't hooking people up to electrodes or causing starvation of testing pharmaceuticals on them... let's have some perspective here.
And for the 'kill em all' crowd..
Really? You think this will solve much (if anything)? If you end up infront of a judge in a case of mistaken identity how quickly will you change your tune?
Incidentally, I actually favour the death penalty within certain conditions... I'm still pissed that my tax dollars are keeping Paul Bernardo alive (look him up).

I'll shut up now.

The article glosses over the bad parts obviously. It's poorly run, sick, corrupt, and inefficient.


"They're in tents. The Arizona Court of Appeals has found that these tent conditions are extremely dangerous; and in fact, they held Arpaio liable -- personally liable -- on a lawsuit a couple of months ago where a guy was beaten into a coma with a tent stake, an inmate."

"Well, if somebody comes in and they're unruly, instead of just locking them in the cell and just letting them blow steam, Maricopa County's way of handling these people is send in a bunch of goons into the jail, drag the person out, strap them down in these -- they look like medieval torture chairs ﾭ strap their legs and arms down and bend their head down and put a mask over their face (like the famous Abu Ghraib picture of the guy with the mask. That's what they do. They call them spit masks.) They'll strap them in there. In one instance Mr. Norberg died in the chair while they were pressing his head forward so hard he suffocated. While he was dying, the prison guards had a discussion about it. The people were saying: 'He's -- he's not looking good. He's turning blue'; and the response from one of the guards was an expletive like, 'Who cares?' That family sued, and Scott Norberg, his dad was -- Scott Norberg just wasn't another chump off the street that they could beat up and kill in the jail and nothing happened. His father was the corporate counsel for the largest utility in the state of Arizona. He ended up hiring one of the top attorneys in the southwest, Mike Manning, and they went in and sued. Maricopa county paid an eight million dollar settlement for a wrongful death to settle that case out of court to the Norberg survivors."

"I don't know, twenty cents a day.' Something like that, ridiculous. And it literally is rotten. But at the same time he operates a commissary in there and a series of vending machines, and he allows inmates to purchase these better food off there. We've been seeking now for three months the financial records that are associated with the commissary and the vending machines in there. I'm talking millions and millions of dollars rolling through these things. They've refused to do that. We have now filed suit with Maricopa county against the sheriff's office to obtain these public records. At the same time, this guy has accumulated more than $2 million worth of real estate. It's very interesting. How is he getting all of this real estate? We have asked him to present his real estate records. Those are sealed as well."

If this isn't twisted, counterproductive, and convinces everyone, I don't
know what will.


""Well, we took this guy off the street," Arpaio bragged in his best
John Wayne inflection to a television news station after
going home to "comfort" his wife in the wake of the alleged
foiled assassination attempt. "He's back in prison, where he
belongs."

This is where Arpaio wished the Saville newsreel had ended.

But there's more.

Saville didn't deserve to be locked up in Arpaio's dungeon.

He was innocent.

Four years after his televised arrest, a Maricopa County Superior
Court jury ruled that Arpaio's detectives had entrapped
Saville.

Entrapment defenses rarely succeed because they are exceedingly
difficult to prove. James Saville's attorney, Ulises Ferragut, had
to prove that the idea of killing the sheriff had started
with law enforcement, that deputies or their agents urged
Saville to commit the crime and that Saville was not
predisposed to do it.

Ferragut proved all three elements, and James Saville walked out of
Arpaio's jail a free man. After the trial, jurors told Ferragut
they were convinced that Saville had been a pawn in an
elaborate media ploy. "

Cubic, two things:

1) please cite your first reference

2) your second reference was completely irrelevant

"How could this thread possibly have gone this far? How could noone have said "This guy is sick." and had everyone else agree and walk away? The amount of freedom people are willing to give up (and not even their own freedom, no less!) in return for "security" will never cease to astound me."
--
See post #7

They are both news sources. The first one is a radio transcript. The
second is an article. It's irrelevant that the Sheriff and his
department were guilty of entrapment? Please explain.

http://www.november.org/stayinfo/breaking2/SheriffJoe.html
http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-06-24/news/in-the-crosshairs/

"It's irrelevant that the Sheriff and his
department were guilty of entrapment? Please explain."

This is a discussion about prisons and the conditions within... none of the entrapment happened while in jail, ergo it is irrelevant.

Excuse me but the original post was commending the man, and that was one of his actions. I'm offering a rebuttal to that. As I've been reading up on this, I'm getting more and more disgusted with this thread.

One more source.

http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0707/S00325.htm

"The idea that running a prison of this kind could present savings to the taxpayer does not hold up. The tents and food both army surplus and on the surface it is a cheap deal. But Arpaio controls both the police and prisons, so he uses savings in prison to prop up the police. For every amenity that he cuts from the prisons, he buys some unnecessary and expensive piece of equipment, gets the county involved in lawsuits due to his cruel prison management, or pays for an extravagant publicity stunt. In his second term of office alone, he bought a howitzer with $15,000 tires, a $70,000 armored car, spent $3 million to move to a penthouse office with big-screen TVs and other luxuries, and spent more than a million dollars on take-home vehicles for his favorite staffers. By 2001, some $16 million had already been paid to plaintiffs in successful lawsuits against the Sheriffs Department in relation to inmate deaths."

Cubic we clearly have a different opinion on the main subject here, as such it is unlikely we will reach an accord. I do, however, agree the the gentleman in question has some issues (howitzer, really?!?).

as an aside... the two sources you provided originally were the same journalist... be sceptical of the internet

You don't link the internet?

Here's a documentary I found online. I can't get the video to work perfectly, but his prison is featured as part of it. The title of the documentary is "Torture Inc. Americas Brutal Prisons".

I don't know the reputation of the organization because it's British, but there you go a non internet source.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article8451.htm

The transcript of the documentary is also on that page.

"Two of the deaths we investigated were in the same county jail in Phoenix, Arizona, which is run by a man who revels in the title of ﾑAmericaﾒs Toughest Sheriff.ﾒ

His name is Joe Arpaio. He positively welcomes TV crews and we were promised ﾑunfettered access.ﾒ It was a reassuring turn of phrase ﾖ you donﾒt want to be fettered in one of Sheriff Joeﾒs jails.

We uncovered two videotapes from surveillance cameras showing how his tough stance can end in tragedy.

The first tape, from 2001, shows a man named Charles Agster dragged in by police, handcuffed at the wrists and ankles. Agster is mentally disturbed and a drug user. He was arrested for causing a disturbance in a late-night grocery store. The police handed him over to the Sheriffﾒs deputies in the jail. Agster is a tiny man, weighing no more than nine stone, but heﾒs struggling.

The tape shows nine deputies manhandling him into the restraint chair. One of them kneels on Agsterﾒs stomach, pushing his head forward on to his knees and pulling his arms back to strap his wrists into the chair. "

Okay, the documentary is done by Channel 4 in Britain, which is a publicly owned, are there possibly any more questions about the research I've done?

Just watched the video. It talked about two deaths due to this isolation chair he has. One of those deaths happened to one person who was only supposed to stay there a short amount of time. They let them die in the chair on accident due to blood clots because there aren't careful. One man said he's rather be in a Mexican prison. And I guessed the personality of the warden spot on about 10 posts ago, he's completely media-hungry. They said one man that died fell off his bed, and the hospital said that was wrong. There were many times they mentioned cases where the prison was completely negligent, a woman who died from an ectopic pregnancy, I think that's when the baby starts forming earlier in the fallopian tube, anyway they let her die rather than getting her to a hospital. All of this is in the video if you want to check, nothing made up, they have the footage. (some of those deaths I mentioned from the video, were referenced in the articles I quoted before).

I am completely disgusted. The warden thinks it's a joke, it's ridiculous. Thats the reason for the black and white uniforms, because he likes the classic look, all those policies were for as I speculated his own ego. The food is cheap only because he can use that to siphon more money out of the prison. Serve them crappy food then have them pay to get decent food, basically giving a monopoly to his prison. He's completely negligent and it's horrible.

Wouldn't that mean less of taxpayer's money would go to looking after the prisoner's then?

Look at the article I posted 5 posts above yours, sorry to sort of overload the thread with posts but there it discusses where a lot of the money goes.

So, I gather from that, less is being spent on them, but we spend the same amount only to have some of it go to that man?

Basically, his whole operation seems fishy with sealed records on whatever's going on with the finances.

This article talks about the large multitude of real estate purchases he's made in cash, which clearly don't add up to his salary.

http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-07-01/news/sheriff-joe-s-real-estate-game/

Biggest point I have is this:

Whenever someone treats me like crap or things are really bad that are down to other people, I generally don't reform, I degenerate and start to develop a bad attitude which others feel the brunt of.
Now the things I experience as someone without a criminal record are far from the conditions these people wth a proven track record are living in.
Yes, with the way most prisons are going, the really desperate people are going to re-offend to get back in but those people will end up back there at some point regardless.
Most people respond at least marginally positively to the education given in the prisons here in the UK, qualifications help everybody and although it is annoying that a lot of circumstances happen when they are released that they are given free handouts such as housing and jobs which others don't (mostly how the paedophiles are given new identities and a few even get jobs in schools shortly after they are released) we have a good record in reducing crime.

"This entire thread is inflammatory and ignorant."

Zog wins.

1. The measure of a society is how you treat the least among you.
2. High recidivism crimes are, by their nature, not going to be affected by "bad treatment" unless, in this case, the offender dies of heatstroke while imtented.
3. Which would you rather: criminals learning how to be better criminals while imprisoned or felons learning how to live productive lives within the limits set by society?

#3 bast sounds like it would require shock therapy. lots and lots of shock therapy while being forced to listen to patty loveless at high volume. :8^)

Dear Deity of your choosing,

Please, oh please, let this thread die. Let it be buried underneath mounds of other threads that AREN'T continued for the sole purpose of flaming and soapboxing. Grant that no more threads destined to divide people for no particular reason other than arrogance and ignorance of the issue come to be.

Amen.

that place STILL sucks and so does dude

STOP

You have reached the end of this flaming. You do not pass GO.

Please resume your regularly scheduled activities in a different thread.

disclaimer: the above isn't the law, just my personal opinion. but listen anyway, fool!