Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Living condition of his camps are golden compare to some of the places I've been to. I feel no remorse for them. Food though was like ours somewhat...green scramble eggs to name one...but we had chow 3 times a day made by PAKISTANI's...maybe four if you wake up for midnight chow...I feel a litte remorse for them there. Though as I look back at the time of 90+ days of MRE's a smidgin of remorse. As for pink underwars well I doubt I be stealing some pink underwears. Of course they can't beat the one guy who's FoB got agressed and he was out on perimeter weapon in hand, full body armor, ACH on, flipflops and "I love New York" alover his...clean...I hope...boxers. Pic made the news

Jihadin wrote:Living condition of his camps are golden compare to some of the places I've been to. I feel no remorse for them.

This might surprise you, but not everyone who is arrested is guilty.

Why should someone be forced to suffer illegally and unnecessarily because of a piece of gak disguised as a human being?

(No, I don't care about your experiences in the military in regards to this topic; it is irrelevant, you chose to join the military, you weren't forced to, unlike someone who is under arrest an therefor forced to endure the conditions of cells regardless of guilt or innocence)

I'm having trouble seeing how anyone arrested and being detained pending trial deserves better than other prisoners... Part of being arrested is being detained in jail. In some cases you are give a chance to post bail which not everyone can make, in others you are not given that option. If for whatever reason you are being detained in jail, well, your being detained in jail.

When you go to trial, if you are acquitted you go free.

That seems to be the way it is supposed to work, right?

CptJake wrote:I'm having trouble seeing how anyone arrested and being detained pending trial deserves better than other prisoners...

Because you are not yet proven guilty before the eyes of the law.

We are not supposed to punish people who are not proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:I'm having trouble seeing how anyone arrested and being detained pending trial deserves better than other prisoners...

Because you are not yet proven guilty before the eyes of the law.

And? What part of my post is inaccurate?

If you are detained, a jail is where that detention occurs right? Ever hear of pre-trial confinement? Ever see how some judges deny bail, or set it high enough that the person awaiting trial cannot make bail?

Do you think we ought to just not have pretrial confinement?

CptJake wrote:And? What part of my post is inaccurate?

Did I say any part of it was?

Oh wait.

No. I did not.

I was answering your question.

Unless you dispute the idea that a person is innocent until proven guilty.

Or if you think it's okay to punish people who haven't committed crimes based on the whims of those in power.

So, do you think pretrial confinement is inherently wrong?

CptJake wrote:So, do you think pretrial confinement is inherently wrong?

Stop using a strawman argument.

I'm not, I'm trying to figure out your position.

We seem to have agreed that folks in pretrial confinement are going to spend that confienment in the available jail.

You seem to think since they are not yet convicted that is wrong, if I am understanding you.

So, do you think pretrial confinement is inherently wrong?

If not, and you don't think the guy should be in jail, what is your solution?

CptJake wrote:So, do you think pretrial confinement is inherently wrong?

Did I say it was? Hint: I didn't.

I don't even understand where you get such an assumption from. No, I stated that noone should be unnecessarily punished until they are guilty. Holding them in a cell is fine, if the judge believes that is necessary to ensure the trial will go forth.

Stuffing them into cells with convicted felons like sardines, denying them care for medical and mental health issues, housing them in cells so hot they risk dying, giving them rotting and contaminated food, or beating them senseless, as Arpaio does, is not.

That you seem to believe that the only two solutions are torture or no pretrial confinement at all is disturbing.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:But still in the job. You think he be in jail by now wouldn't you?

If justice worked that way sarah palin would be in a jail cell, not commanding hundred thousand dollar speaking fees. Cheney would probably get the firing squad (he might even shoot himself this time!)


Conservatives don't care if you break laws, violate human rights, and are generally a scumbag. They care that you're "Doing something" which they "want done". Mexicans are apparently scary and rich old white people don't have much to fear from corrupt police so they support the guy. Constitution be damned these days it seems.

I'm conservative Shuma. So, I don't care if someone violates human rights or breaks laws? Really? I'm not a huge fan of the Sheriff, but it seems you are profiling just as badly as Arpaio is.

Edit for grammar because I'm into my fourth Jim Beam and Coke (the drink, not the drug)

CptJake wrote:I'm not, I'm trying to figure out your position.

We seem to have agreed that folks in pretrial confinement are going to spend that confienment in the available jail.

You seem to think since they are not yet convicted that is wrong, if I am understanding you.

So, do you think pretrial confinement is inherently wrong?

If not, and you don't think the guy should be in jail, what is your solution?

Don't you have bail in America? In Britain pretty much everyone who isn't a murderer/rapist gets granted bail.

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:Living condition of his camps are golden compare to some of the places I've been to. I feel no remorse for them.

This might surprise you, but not everyone who is arrested is guilty.

Why should someone be forced to suffer illegally and unnecessarily because of a piece of gak disguised as a human being?

(No, I don't care about your experiences in the military in regards to this topic; it is irrelevant, you chose to join the military, you weren't forced to, unlike someone who is under arrest an therefor forced to endure the conditions of cells regardless of guilt or innocence)

This might suprise you but Tent City is only for convicts, detention without conviction is in regular jails.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Jihadin wrote:But still in the job. You think he be in jail by now wouldn't you?

If justice worked that way sarah palin would be in a jail cell, not commanding hundred thousand dollar speaking fees. Cheney would probably get the firing squad (he might even shoot himself this time!)


Conservatives don't care if you break laws, violate human rights, and are generally a scumbag. They care that you're "Doing something" which they "want done". Mexicans are apparently scary and rich old white people don't have much to fear from corrupt police so they support the guy. Constitution be damned these days it seems.

This last part here is not acceptable. "Conservatives" in general are not bad people. While undoubtedtly some terrible people identify themselves as Conservatives and support some terrible politicians, that doesn't mean all Conservatives or even most Conservatives do so. Right in this thread Auston has been demonstrating that not all Conservatives confirm to your generalizations, even in regard to people like Arpaio.

Melissia wrote:

CptJake wrote:So, do you think pretrial confinement is inherently wrong?

Did I say it was? Hint: I didn't.

I don't even understand where you get such an assumption from. No, I stated that noone should be unnecessarily punished until they are guilty. Holding them in a cell is fine, if the judge believes that is necessary to ensure the trial will go forth.

Stuffing them into cells with convicted felons like sardines, denying them care for medical and mental health issues, housing them in cells so hot they risk dying, giving them rotting and contaminated food, or beating them senseless, as Arpaio does, is not.

That you seem to believe that the only two solutions are torture or no pretrial confinement at all is disturbing.

Be undisturbed. Your perception of what I believeis not all that accurate (no surprise there though). But if you enjoy beating that straw man, have at it.

CptJake wrote:Be undisturbed. Your perception of what I believeis not all that accurate (no surprise there though). But if you enjoy beating that straw man, have at it.

Then stop arguing for that point, because I've only objected to Arpaio's treatment's in this thread, not to the very concept of holding someone until trial.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

AustonT wrote:This might suprise you but Tent City is only for convicts, detention without conviction is in regular jails.

Not from what I read.

Even if it was, Arpaio is still scum.

If he's keeping people in tent cities pre-trial, he may be crossing the line as far as conditions for pre-trial incarceration.

It seems like there's some disagreement about if that's happening or not? It really sounds like he is though because a sheriff will only be holding convicts who broke county and city ordinances and there can't be that many of those.

I always love threads about Arpaio, without fail people come out as either reviling him, or loving him.

Ultimately I think that the most remarkable characteristic of the man, how he has managed to be such an effective self-promoter while riding the "tough on crime" image he has cultivated despite significant statistical evidence that his tactics have not succeeded in actually reducing crime in Maricopa County (even relative to municipalities in Maricopa County).

That being said, in areas where either the perception of crime, or crime itself, are relatively high it isn't unusual to see voters adopt a preference for politicians that are "tough on crime". regardless of whether or not those measures are effective. In essence, people generally prefer feeling good about what their elected officials say to electing officials that produce consistently positive results.

Jihadin wrote:

Wo wo wo now. How the do you top Marilyn Monroe?

The fact he didn't even try to top Marilyn Monroe. Besides why impeach him on a adultry charge? Didn't think a brand of cigars was ultra secret or something

He wasn't going to be impeached for adultery, he was going to be impeached for perjury.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:This might suprise you but Tent City is only for convicts, detention without conviction is in regular jails.

Not from what I read.

Even if it was, Arpaio is still scum.

This tit bit is from the MCSO website

housing sentenced inmates in the tents seemed a good solution.

http://www.mcso.org/JailInformation/TentCity.aspx

I'm not an Arpaio fan, but tent city is one of his policies I firmly support, and although you dismissed it out of hand Jihadin had a perfectly good point. One that Arpaio made in 1993 when he opened Tent City. If tents are good enough for the troops, they are good enough for convicts. Not releasing people early due to overcrowding, agree. Keeping the budget down through austere facilities, agree. Beating, mocking, harrasing, and generally being a bully to spainish speaking convicts, disagree. The facility itself isn't the issue there.

Rented Tritium wrote:If he's keeping people in tent cities pre-trial, he may be crossing the line as far as conditions for pre-trial incarceration.

It seems like there's some disagreement about if that's happening or not? It really sounds like he is though because a sheriff will only be holding convicts who broke county and city ordinances and there can't be that many of those.

Your knowelege of all things policing seems to have failed you.

The Maricopa County Jail system, one of the largest in the country, has grown every year throughout the decade with only one exception. The county oversees the jail, which is staffed and operated by the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office. The jail system consists of several facilities in and around downtown Phoenix.

Generally speaking, the jail system holds two types of inmates: those who have been arrested and are awaiting court action but are still legally considered innocent (about 74%), and those who have been convicted, usually of relatively minor crimes, and are serving their sentences (about 26%). In most cases, individuals convicted of misdemeanors (offenses penalized by up to a year of incarceration) serve their time in jail, while most people convicted of felonies (punishable by a year or more) go to state prison.

AustonT wrote:If tents are good enough for the troops, they are good enough for convicts.

That argument is so mind-bogglingly inane that I cannot think of a single polite way to respond to it.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:If tents are good enough for the troops, they are good enough for convicts.

That argument is so mind-bogglingly inane that I cannot think of a single polite way to respond to it.

Oh please make a case for why people who willfully break the law, and then are either convicted by a jury of thier peers or plea bargain are entitled to better treatment than soldiers. I would love to see this line of argument.

AustonT wrote:Oh please make a case for why people who willfully break the law, and then are either convicted by a jury of thier peers or plea bargain are entitled to better treatment than soldiers. I would love to see this line of argument.

1: Not everyone who is in jail "willfully broke the law", so your question is stupid before I even attempt to answer it.

2: The soldier can walk away from that life at any time. That they don't is great-- but a prisoner cannot do the same, they're stuck there whether against their will or not, and it is the state's job to provide for them because the state put them there-- regardless of your (false) assumption of choice.

If, because of the incompetence, negligence, or malice of the state in forcing a prisoner to endure life-threatening conditions, the prisoner dies, then the state is at fault and deserves a harsh penalty indeed. If it were any country other than America, you'd probably call it torture, but apparently because a conservative did it it's okay.

Melissia wrote:

AustonT wrote:Oh please make a case for why people who willfully break the law, and then are either convicted by a jury of thier peers or plea bargain are entitled to better treatment than soldiers. I would love to see this line of argument.

1: Not everyone who is in jail "willfully broke the law", so your question is stupid before I even attempt to answer it.

This doesn't even require a rebuttal.

2: The soldier can walk away from that life at any time. That they don't is great-- but a prisoner cannot do the same, they're stuck there whether against their will or not, and it is the state's job to provide for them because the state put them there-- regardless of your (false) assumption of choice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desertion.
I'm sure the state made them rob a liquor store or deal crack too. That's how they ended up convicted of a crime that ended in incarceration without having made any choices. In fact the only thing criminals are guilty of is DESTINY right?

2: The soldier can walk away from that life at any time. That they don't is great-- but a prisoner cannot do the same, they're stuck there whether against their will or not, and it is the state's job to provide for them because the state put them there-- regardless of your (false) assumption of choice.

Now thats freaking funny. Do you know what "AWOL" stand for and the ramification of it?

If, because of the incompetence, negligence, or malice of the state in forcing a prisoner to endure life-threatening conditions, the prisoner dies, then the state is at fault and deserves a harsh penalty indeed. If it were any country other than America, you'd probably call it torture, but apparently because a conservative did it it's okay.

What life threatening conditions? If its the 110 degree and the facility doesn't provide water then yes by all means string up the authority I do believe they get water though. At times we get water ration over there which I'm sure the convicts/prisoners get more water than what I recieved. Three min showers are fun.

Jihadin wrote:What life threatening conditions? If its the 110 degree and the facility doesn't provide water then yes by all means string up the authority

Think Arizona summers, but with no access to air conditioning, sinks, liquid foods, etc. He also denied them medical care, including ongoing medications for both physical and mental ailments.

Melissia wrote:

Jihadin wrote:What life threatening conditions? If its the 110 degree and the facility doesn't provide water then yes by all means string up the authority

Think Arizona summers, but with no access to air conditioning, sinks, liquid foods, etc. He also denied them medical care, including ongoing medications for both physical and mental ailments.

Defend at all costs:

Demand the immediate dismantling:


Melissa's mixed messages hurt my head.

Voluntary vs. forced.

AustonT wrote:Oh please make a case for why people who willfully break the law,

Wow. You really think everyone arrested "willfully broke the law" huh? Ever heard of a not guilty verdict?

AustonT wrote:either convicted by a jury of thier peers or plea bargain

Oh, I guess not. Nevermind.

AustonT wrote:Oh please make a case for why people who willfully break the law, and then are either convicted by a jury of thier peers or plea bargain are entitled to better treatment than soldiers.

A Kvlt Ghost wrote:

AustonT wrote:Oh please make a case for why people who willfully break the law,

Wow. You really think everyone arrested "willfully broke the law" huh? Ever heard of a not guilty verdict?

AustonT wrote:either convicted by a jury of thier peers or plea bargain

Oh, I guess not. Nevermind.

Don't ever let conjunction or context get in your way!
I believe in you. Carry on.