We need someone like this in charge..

[dave.j.robbo]

In the news recently it was announced that judges are being told only to
send the worst criminals to jail due to overcrowding...so why don't we have
someone like this in charge then?



TO THOSE OF YOU NOT FAMILIAR WITH JOE ARPAIO, HE IS THE MARICOPA COUNTY SHERIFF ( ARIZONA ) AND HE KEEPS GETTING ELECTED OVER AND OVER AGAIN.



These are some of the reasons why:



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



He has jail meals down to 40 cents a serving and charges the inmates for them.



He banned smoking and porno magazines in the jails, and took away the 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), the Associated Press reports: 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 Wednesday, hundreds of men wearing pink boxer shorts were 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."



Wednesday 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. If you agree, pass this on.

If not, just delete it.



Sheriff Joe was just re-elected

Sheriff in Maricopa County , Arizona

[MattF]

Not oft I'll say this, but that's one American we could do with over here.

[CaptainBeaky]

I have to say he has a point regarding the life of relative luxury provided in prisons, but everything is not rosy in this particular garden:

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

Quite a few cases of deaths in custody, especially the Scott Norberg case.

Here is a view of it - bear in mind that Scott Norberg had not been charged with ANYTHING - he was in jail waiting for a court hearing, not even 24 hours after being arrested.

Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Sorry Matt, I don't agree - we have quite enough of our own home-grown efforts to remove or reduce due process as it is.

[MattF]

Quite a few cases of deaths in custody, especially the Scott Norberg case.

Here is a view of it - bear in mind that Scott Norberg had not been charged with ANYTHING - he was in jail waiting for a court hearing, not even 24 hours after being arrested.

Innocent until proven guilty, remember?

Sorry Matt, I don't agree - we have quite enough of our own home-grown efforts to remove or reduce due process as it is.

I'd have to disagree. Granted, I never thought he would be a perfectly upstanding type. For every good point there is a flaw, that's human nature, but balancing them is the trick.

However, pointing out a suspect case where the said person was high on drugs is hardly a good starting point for disagreement. We've had that happen to people who were drunk in custody over here, and we nanny them.

[beaufighter]

This is what we need. The prisons are overcrowded and they are too soft. I work in an industry where much of my time is spent in criminal courts witnessing soft sentances being metered out after much time and effort by law enforcement agencies. Magistrates and judges are instructed to use any alternative means rather than send somebody to jail. Personally I would keep the prisons for either repeat offenders or those that are a danger to the community. All others, make them work their sentance within the community at minimal wage. Maybe some of the draconian methods now abolished would be the answer to rising crime.

[MattF]

Personally I would keep the prisons for either repeat offenders or those that are a danger to the community.

The prisons shouldn't be reserved for repeat offenders. The prisons should be used to make sure that no one has the incentive to reoffend once released.

[beaufighter]

The prisons shouldn't be reserved for repeat offenders. The prisons should be used to make sure that no one has the incentive to reoffend once released.

True, but I see many people return to the courts time after time. When you see the cost of the prosecution that has to be paid for by public funds you may agree that if they had been sent to prison on the second offence then they would not have been at liberty to re-offend.

[MattF]

True, but I see many people return to the courts time after time. When you see the cost of the prosecution that has to be paid for by public funds you may agree that if they had been sent to prison on the second offence then they would not have been at liberty to re-offend.

I obviously didn't mean that they couldn't be sent there if they *did* reoffend. I was merely pointing out that the prisons should be made habitable yet unhospitable. That way, anyone who reoffends is either a masochist or just some completely useless waste of space. The latter should be left there permanently second time around, in all honesty.

[CaptainBeaky]

I'd have to disagree. Granted, I never thought he would be a perfectly upstanding type. For every good point there is a flaw, that's human nature, but balancing them is the trick.

Can't disagree with that bit.

However, pointing out a suspect case where the said person was high on drugs is hardly a good starting point for disagreement. We've had that happen to people who were drunk in custody over here, and we nanny them.

Actually, he was coming off a high when arrested. The autopsy found NO residue in his blood stream, only in his urine, which means he was on the low point, and would no way have been manic, or had superhuman strength - more likely almost comatose (as evidenced by the CCTV footage and eyewitness statements). There was certainly no need to beat the c r a p out of him, then asphyxiate him.
OK, the tent city/chain gang/pink shorts for convicted crims, but a prisoner on remand is still an innocent man right up the point where the foreman of the jury says, "Guilty, your Honour".
The point of having legal process is that justice can be seen to be done - in this case, it wasn't.

We have also had positional asphyxia cases in this country as well - it can happen accidentally, but there is no excuse for doing it as deliberately and callously as in the Norberg case.

[beaufighter]

I obviously didn't mean that they couldn't be sent there if they *did* reoffend. I was merely pointing out that the prisons should be made habitable yet unhospitable. That way, anyone who reoffends is either a masochist or just some completely useless waste of space. The latter should be left there permanently second time around, in all honesty.

Got to agree with you then Matt. I wonder though how things will be now the demise of the ARA is iminent.

[MattF]

We have also had positional asphyxia cases in this country as well - it can happen accidentally, but there is no excuse for doing it as deliberately and callously as in the Norberg case.

My turn. Can't disagree on that bit.

[CaptainBeaky]

The prisons shouldn't be reserved for repeat offenders. The prisons should be used to make sure that no one has the incentive to reoffend once released.

Damn right - prisons should not be places you enjoy being in.They should be places you want to leave as soon as possible, and never go back to.
Rehabilitation is fine, but that pre-supposes that the rehabilitees are capable of being, and willing to be, rehabilitated.
For the recidivist scumbags, it should be a deterrent to re-offending.
Once - could be a mistake, or youthful folly.
Twice - didn't get the message first time?
Three times - lifestyle choice.

If this seems to conflict with the tone of my previous post, read them both again!