We are completely ass backwards when stuff like this happens.

[Dwaar]

http://news.yahoo.com/immigrant-rights-groups-sue-arizona-sheriff-over-workplace-011943419.html

Best part:

"Arpaio is the only local law enforcement official in Arizona enforcing state laws that make it illegal for a person to use information belonging to someone else, such as a Social Security number, to obtain employment, said Dan Pochoda, legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Arizona, which is one of the groups representing the plaintiffs.

So the police officer is actually being sued, by a lawyer for ILLEGAL immigrants, because he ... wait for it... "enforces state laws that make it illegal for a person to use information belonging to someone else".

For actually enforcing the law!! Being sued by illegal immigrants.

We have lost all common sense in this country.

[Ardwen]

Identity thieves have rights too don't you know!! Stuff like this is proof that we have way too many lawyers with too much free time.

[Demgar]

That particular sheriff is a racist asshole. The particular suit may or may not have any grounds, but he's a damn villian. Check out his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

My personal favorite is the immigration traffic stops. They were literally pulling people over for the crime of looking Mexican.

[kutter]

That particular sheriff is a racist asshole. The particular suit may or may not have any grounds, but he's a damn villian. Check out his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

My personal favorite is the immigration traffic stops. They were literally pulling people over for the crime of looking Mexican.

I guess that means all the people in Maricopa County, the 4th largest county in the country,are all racist as well, since he keeps getting re-elected, FOR ENFORCING THE LAW. Clearly the people of Maricopa County think he is doing a good job since he has been elected 4 times. I would be willing to bet demgar that you do not live in a border state, so your idea of immigration issues is some abstract news story you got on CNN.

[Warriorbird]

It might be slightly more complex than that.

[Demgar]

I would be willing to bet demgar that you do not live in a border state, so your idea of immigration issues is some abstract news story you got on CNN.

I'm an ex-pat American (Colorado: 10% foreign born to AZ's 13%) who lives in Europe now. Being an immigrant (a legal one mind, but an immigrant) has certainly flavored my perspective, but it's far from an abstract issue to me.

edit: Got distracted by the ad-hominim, nice one...

The dude's a villian. Straight up. Seriously, go read his wiki page, there's 14 topics under controversies and 9 sub-topics! Great read. His selective enforcement of terrible policies and resulting popularity with rich white retirees doesn't make any him less of a racist.

Double edit: I'll share my favorite. Getting sued for selectively enforcing ID theft laws vs immigrants is just about the least interesting thing this guy's ever been involved in.

Staged assassination plot
In 1999, undercover MCSO deputies arrested James Saville, then 18 years old, and charged him with plotting to kill Arpaio with a pipe bomb. A local television station had been tipped off to the arrest by the MCSO, and broadcast footage of the arrest that evening. The MCSO held a news conference shortly after the arrest, and Arpaio appeared in interviews on local television stations, saying "If they think they are going to scare me away with bombs and everything else, it's not going to bother me."

After spending four years in jail awaiting trial, Saville was acquitted by a Maricopa County Superior Court jury, which found that Arpaio's detectives had helped buy the bomb parts themselves and had entrapped Saville as part of a publicity stunt.

Saville filed suit against Arpaio and Maricopa County for wrongful arrest. In 2008, the suit was settled, with Maricopa County paying Saville $1.6 million.

[Demgar]

Also, neg-repping me for disagreeing with you is just petty...

[Warriorbird]

The staged assassination plot was what convinced even my militia member cousin that this guy has issues.

[Atlanteax]

The staged assassination plot was what convinced even my militia member cousin that this guy has issues.

Yep, greatly reduces any sort of credibility.

[Gelston]

I'm just tired of him always being in the news. I couldn't give a shit less what happens in Arizona and to me, he has always just seemed like a camera whore.

[Dwaar]

Not trying to say one way or the other what the Sheriff is.

I'm focused on the legal argument, that the Lawyer for the plaintiffs (illegal aliens) is trying to use. Going before court and saying, "he is enforcing the law" hence "these people should be released".

Astounding.

[Tgo01]

Staged assassination plot
In 1999, undercover MCSO deputies arrested James Saville, then 18 years old, and charged him with plotting to kill Arpaio with a pipe bomb. A local television station had been tipped off to the arrest by the MCSO, and broadcast footage of the arrest that evening. The MCSO held a news conference shortly after the arrest, and Arpaio appeared in interviews on local television stations, saying "If they think they are going to scare me away with bombs and everything else, it's not going to bother me."

After spending four years in jail awaiting trial, Saville was acquitted by a Maricopa County Superior Court jury, which found that Arpaio's detectives had helped buy the bomb parts themselves and had entrapped Saville as part of a publicity stunt.

Saville filed suit against Arpaio and Maricopa County for wrongful arrest. In 2008, the suit was settled, with Maricopa County paying Saville $1.6 million.

Holy heck, this is a good lesson to actually read the sources from Wikipedia instead of just relying on the Wikipedia page. Not that I'm denying Arpaio is an asshole but this guy wasn't exactly some sweet little innocent angel that Arpaio framed.

According to the links for the story: (http://www.phoenixnewtimes.com/2004-06-24/news/in-the-crosshairs/)


A self-described pyromaniac with prior felony convictions

18 years old and he's already a "self-described pyromaniac" with "prior felony convictions."

And then there is this shit: (http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/valleyfever/2008/10/arpaios_phony_murder_plot_cost.php)


“Jurors listened in disbelief as testimony showed it was the sheriff’s money that purchased the bomb parts, and an undercover officer who drove Saville around to buy the parts,” Bommersbach wrote.

A) Why does it matter if it was the sheriff's money that bought the bomb parts? Isn't this typical of undercover stings; that the uncover agent helps the criminal along?
B) So the undercover officer drove Saville around and apparently Saville bought the parts and...again what is this fucking proving?

By reading the Wikipedia page it sounds like they picked some random stranger off the street, planted bomb parts on him and charged him with attempted murder.

Reading the news articles it sounds like the guy wanted to build the bomb; after all he was the one buying the parts apparently.

I wasn't at the trial so I don't have all of the evidence the jury had to decide whether the guy was entrapped or not but let's not pretend this was some innocent little angel like the obviously biased wikipedia article indicates.

[Taernath]

I guess that means all the people in Maricopa County, the 4th largest county in the country,are all racist as well, since he keeps getting re-elected, FOR ENFORCING THE LAW. Clearly the people of Maricopa County think he is doing a good job since he has been elected 4 times. I would be willing to bet demgar that you do not live in a border state, so your idea of immigration issues is some abstract news story you got on CNN.

I live in Maricopa County. Having fully established my cred on this issue, Arpaio's a creep. It's common knowledge to anyone who bothers to look into these issues, but as he keeps getting reelected, not many people apparently do.

[AnticorRifling]

That particular sheriff is a racist asshole. The particular suit may or may not have any grounds, but he's a damn villian. Check out his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

My personal favorite is the immigration traffic stops. They were literally pulling people over for the crime of looking Mexican.

Those are just normal traffic stops, no way a pickup truck can have a dozen seat belts. Simple moving violations obviously.

[Taernath]

A) Why does it matter if it was the sheriff's money that bought the bomb parts? Isn't this typical of undercover stings; that the uncover agent helps the criminal along?
B) So the undercover officer drove Saville around and apparently Saville bought the parts and...again what is this fucking proving?


It has to do with how likely the person would be to commit the crime without police encouragement.

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue2/2003/06/14/36722-man-cleared-of-plot-to-bomb-sheriff-arpaio/


Sheriff’s Sgt. Wayne Scoville was the star witness for the defense.

In earlier interviews, he said Saville was the victim of an entrapment scheme started by a prison snitch in 1999.

The informer, Saville’s prison mate, told him that he would get cars and money if he agreed to meet a mobster and build a bomb to kill Arpaio. If he refused, the snitch said Saville’s family would be in danger. At the time, Saville was completing an 18-month sentence for inciting a race riot and attempting to blow up Maryvale High School.

The defense said the snitch concocted the scheme to gain favor and get out of prison.

When Saville left prison on July 8, 1999, an undercover detective helped him make the bomb and took him to the sheriff’s car in a restaurant parking lot, where Saville was arrested in front of the media.

So yeah, the guy's a unabomber but he wasn't a unabomber in the Arpaio case.

[Tgo01]

It has to do with how likely the person would be to commit the crime without police encouragement.

I don't think giving him money and driving him around is considered encouragement though. If the only thing stopping this guy from building a pipe bomb was money and a car then I'm sure he would have gotten these things eventually.

[Taernath]

I edited my post with more info ^^

[Sorcasaurus]

Wow, nice little niche of grey area Saville has himself in there. (In reference to the snitch threatening his family if he didn't do it) It doesn't sound like anyone questioned the threat either, which makes me think it did actually happened. Not sure what I'd do, but if the movie Taken has any lessons to teach us...


Quick! Someone threaten my family if I don't do something about my neighborhood. I have some neighbors not keeping their yard up to snuff :wink1:

[Latrinsorm]

So the police officer is actually being sued, by a lawyer for ILLEGAL immigrants, because he ... wait for it... "enforces state laws that make it illegal for a person to use information belonging to someone else".

For actually enforcing the law!! Being sued by illegal immigrants.

We have lost all common sense in this country.I don't know if it's common or not, but it makes sense that a local official can't enforce state law. It's a simple question of jurisdiction.
I guess that means all the people in Maricopa County, the 4th largest county in the country,are all racist as well, since he keeps getting re-elected, FOR ENFORCING THE LAW. Clearly the people of Maricopa County think he is doing a good job since he has been elected 4 times. I would be willing to bet demgar that you do not live in a border state, so your idea of immigration issues is some abstract news story you got on CNN.This is not necessarily the right interpretation. The people of Maricopa County may simply think he is doing a better job than the alternative. Better does not mean good. Surely you have described an election as choosing the lesser of two evils at some point?

[kutter]

Also, neg-repping me for disagreeing with you is just petty...

Wasn't me, I almost never neg rep and if I do, I sign it

[kutter]

I don't know if it's common or not, but it makes sense that a local official can't enforce state law. It's a simple question of jurisdiction.This is not necessarily the right interpretation. The people of Maricopa County may simply think he is doing a better job than the alternative. Better does not mean good. Surely you have described an election as choosing the lesser of two evils at some point?

Actually locals can enforce state law, state officials cannot enforce local law. A city LEO can enforce all laws up to and including federal, I deal with it on a daily basis, as a practical matter they will almost always engage the appropriate agency since they always have more knowledge in reference to the specific statute.

[Warriorbird]

Actually locals can enforce state law, state officials cannot enforce local law. A city LEO can enforce all laws up to and including federal, I deal with it on a daily basis, as a practical matter they will almost always engage the appropriate agency since they always have more knowledge in reference to the specific statute.

You guys also normally don't break the law and work for publicity which causes me to respect you quite a bit more than this dude.

[Methais]

That particular sheriff is a racist asshole. The particular suit may or may not have any grounds, but he's a damn villian. Check out his wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio

My personal favorite is the immigration traffic stops. They were literally pulling people over for the crime of looking Mexican.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CUJWzwyuARQ/Utw9QcgdwoI/AAAAAAAAX3A/AT9Q7L6ic-M/s1600/race_card_poster-obama.jpg

[Warriorbird]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CUJWzwyuARQ/Utw9QcgdwoI/AAAAAAAAX3A/AT9Q7L6ic-M/s1600/race_card_poster-obama.jpg

Changes to jail operations
Arpaio began to serve inmates surplus food and limited meals to twice daily.[33]

He banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them, or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to the nude photos in the publications. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[34]

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE.[35] Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day.

In March 2007, the Maricopa County Jail hosted "Inmate Idol",[36] a takeoff on the popular TV show American Idol.

Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted “Jail Cam”, a 24-hour Internet webcast of images from cameras in the Madison Street Jail, a facility which processed and housed pretrial detainees. The goals of the broadcasts were the deterrence of future crime and improved public scrutiny of jail procedures. The cameras showed arrestees being brought in handcuffed, fingerprinted, booked, and taken to holding cells; with the site receiving millions of hits per day.[37] Twenty-four former detainees brought suit against the Sheriff's office, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process had been violated.

Under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Jails have lost accreditation multiple times.[38] In September, 2008, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care terminated the accreditation of all Maricopa County Sheriff's Office jails for failure to maintain compliance with national standards, and providing false information about such compliance.[dead link][39][40] In October, 2008, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the grossly inadequate conditions at the Maricopa County Jail, overseen by Arpaio, are unconstitutional and jeopardize the health and safety of prisoners.[41]

Tent City
Arpaio set up a "tent city" as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail (33°25′40″N 112°07′26″W). Tent City is located in a yard next to a more permanent structure containing toilets, showers, an area for meals, and a day room.[42] It has become notable particularly because of Phoenix's extreme temperatures. Daytime temperatures inside the tents have been reported as high as 150 °F (65 °C) in the top bunks.[43] During the summer, fans and water are supplied in the tents.[44]

During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), which is higher than average, Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."[45] Inmates were given permission to wear only their pink underwear.

Tent City has been criticized by groups contending these are violations of human and constitutional rights, as well as by Erwin James, a murderer currently on parole from a life sentence in Britain, who wrote a series of articles about his experiences in British prisons for The Guardian.[46] In May 2013, Tent City ranked as one of the ten worst prisons in the United States, based on reporting in Mother Jones magazine.[47]

"Mesa Hilton"
Arpaio also maintains a facility called The Maricopa County Southeast Jail Facility. According to a news report from the Phoenix New Times, this facility has been in use since 2004 as an alternative to the Tent city. This facility has been alleged by the Phoenix New Times to be for celebrities and friends of Arpaio only. This facility is full of amenities and dubbed the "Mesa Hilton" as it is in stark contrast to the Tent City set up for normal inmates. It is where Adam Stoddard, Deputy of Arpaio's who stole confidential documents from an Attorney's file spent his time for contempt of court.[48]

Volunteer chain gangs
In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, Arpaio expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs.[49] Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He has also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earn high school credit toward a diploma.[50]

Pink underwear
One of Arpaio's most visible public relations actions was the introduction of pink underwear, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's website cites as being "world famous."[51] Arpaio subsequently started to sell customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from these sales, Arpaio declined to provide an accounting for the money.[52]

Arpaio's success in gaining press coverage with the pink underwear resulted in him extending the use of the color. He introduced pink handcuffs, using the event to promote his book, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Toughest Sheriff.[53]

Selective Service registration and organ donors[edit]
In 2001, Arpaio required all inmates 18 years and older to register for the Selective Service System. Such registration is mandatory for all U.S. males between 18 and 26 years of age, as well as for resident aliens of the same age regardless of their immigration status. Since 2001, a total of 28,000 inmates (including 9,000 illegal aliens) have registered for Selective Service.[54][55]

The Sheriff also started the "Have a Heart" program in which inmates may volunteer to be organ donors.[55]

Silencing critics
In 2008, when Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called for a federal investigation into Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics, Arpaio's office responded by demanding the mayor's emails and phone logs. Arpaio also had his critic Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley, a Republican, arrested on suspicion of failing to properly disclose business interests.[56] Stapley agreed to a $3.5 million settlement in his lawsuit against Arpaio, Thomas and the County for false arrest.[57]

Immigration enforcement
In 2005, the Arizona state legislature passed a state law making it a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison, to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. While already a federal crime, Arizona’s law, also known as the “Coyote law”, made it legal for local police to enforce immigration law and also classified persons being smuggled as co-conspirators subject to penalties as laid out in the law.[58]

Arpaio has instructed his sheriff's deputies and members of his civilian posse to arrest illegal aliens. Arpaio told the Washington Times, "My message is clear: if you come here and I catch you, you're going straight to jail.... I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride to my jail."[59]

On March 3, 2009, the United States Department of Justice "notified Arpaio of the investigation in a letter saying his enforcement methods may unfairly target Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people"[15] Arpaio denied any wrongdoing and stated that he welcomed the investigation, and would cooperate fully.[60] By May, 2009, Arpaio had hired a Washington D.C. lobbyist, who wrote to Obama administration officials suggesting that the decision to probe Arpaio had been driven by political rivalries and score settling.[61] In July, 2009, Arpaio publicly stated that he would not cooperate with the investigation.[62]

In October 2009, the Department of Homeland Security removed the authority of Arpaio's 160 federally trained deputies to make immigration arrests in the field. Despite the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, Arpaio has maintained that he will still pursue illegal aliens under Arizona state law.[63] As of 2012 he continues to do so.[64]

Improper clearance of MCSO cases
Reports show that, under Arpaio, the MCSO may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation.[65][66][67][68] The sheriff's office has failed to properly investigate serious crimes, including the rape of a 14 year old girl by classmates,[69][70] the rape of a 15 year old girl by two strangers,[71][72] and the rape of a 13 year old girl by her father.[71][73][dead link] These cases were "exceptionally cleared" without investigation or even identifying a suspect in one case which are not in accordance with the FBI standards for exceptional clearance.[71][74] In the case of the 15 year old girl, the case was closed within one month and before DNA testing was even complete, the 13 year old's because her mother did not want to "...pursue this investigation," and the 14 year old's because a suspect declined to come in for questioning.[69][71] In a statement to ABC15, the Sheriff's Office claimed, "The Goldwater Institute’s report cites the FBI’s Uniform Code Reporting handbook, which is a voluntary crime-reporting program to compile statistical information and reports. The UCR is not intended for oversight on how law enforcement agencies clear cases...The Sheriff’s Office has its own criteria for clearing cases."[70]

In an interview on the ABC Nightline news program, when asked to explain why 82 percent of cases were declared cleared by exception, Arpaio said "We do clear a higher percentage of that. I know that. We clear many, many cases – not 18 percent." Nightline contacted the MCSO after the interview and was told that of 7,346 crimes, only 944, or 15%, had been cleared by arrest.[75]

Webcasts of pretrial detainees
Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted Jail Cam, a 24-hour Internet webcast of images from cameras in the Madison Street Jail, a facility which processed and housed only pretrial detainees. The stated goals of the broadcasts were the deterrence of future crime and improved public scrutiny of jail procedures. The cameras showed arrestees being brought in handcuffed, fingerprinted, booked, and taken to holding cells; with the site receiving millions of hits per day.[37] Twenty-four former detainees brought suit against the Sheriff's office, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process had been violated.

U.S. District Court Judge Earl H. Carroll held in favor of the former detainees, issuing an injunction ending the webcasts. By a 2 to 1 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, with the majority opinion stating:

... Second, Sheriff Arpaio argues that the cameras are justified by the County’s interest in having its pretrial detention centers open to public scrutiny. We have given prison officials wide latitude in administering pretrial detention facilities, in guaranteeing detainees’ attendance at trial, and in promoting prison safety. But we fail to see how turning pretrial detainees into the unwilling objects of the latest reality show serves any of these legitimate goals. As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[i]nmates . . . are not like animals in a zoo to be filmed and photographed at will by the public or by media reporters, however ‘educational’ the process may be for others.[76][77][dead link]
In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote:

... What the majority avoids—perhaps because of the all-too-predictable result—is to ask the question basic to any review questioning the validity of governmental action under a rational basis analysis: were the webcasts reasonably related to the purpose of deterring public behavior that could result in pretrial detention? The answer clearly is Yes. ... Similarly unexamined is the Sheriff’s purpose of providing transparency of jail operations as a civic good.
Sheriff Arpaio’s methods to achieve his purposes of public deterrence and governmental transparency may not suit the fine sensibilities of some group advocates and jurists. But absent a violation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs—and I see none—such differences of opinion must be vindicated, if at all, in the ballot box, not in the courtroom.[77]
The US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case. Ultimately, Maricopa County was required to pay the detainees' legal costs and damages.[78][dead link]

Inmate complaints and lawsuits
From 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts, with more than $50 million in claims being filed,[79] 50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.[80] Allegations of cruel treatment of inmates as well as living conditions have been cited by Amnesty International in a report issued on the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities.[81]

Recidivism
In 1998, Arpaio commissioned a study, by Arizona State University criminal justice professor Marie L. Griffin, to examine recidivism rates based on conditions of confinement. Comparing recidivism rates under Arpaio to those under his predecessor, the study found "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989–1990 and those released in 1994–1995."[82]

Inmate deaths and injuries
Family members of inmates who have died or been injured in jail custody have filed lawsuits against the sheriff’s office. Maricopa County has paid more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio's tenure.[83]

Charles Agster
In August 2001, Charles Agster, a 33-year-old mentally handicapped man, died in the county jail three days after being forced by sheriff's officers into a restraint chair used for controlling combative arrestees. Agster's parents had been taking him to a psychiatric hospital because he was exhibiting paranoia, then called police when he refused to leave a convenience store where they had stopped en route. Officers took Agster to the Madison Street jail, placed a "spit hood" over his face and strapped him to the chair, where he had an apparent seizure and lost consciousness. He was declared brain dead three days later. A medical examiner later concluded that Agster died of complications of methamphetamine intoxication. In a subsequent lawsuit, an attorney for the sheriff's office described the amount of methamphetamine in Agster's system as 17 times the known lethal dose. The lawsuit resulted in a $9 million jury verdict against the county, the sheriff's office, and Correctional Health Services.[84]

Scott Norberg
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office.[85] Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood.[86] Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. According to a toxological report, Norberg did have methamphetamine in his urine, though "there would be no direct effect caused by the methamphetamine on Norberg's behavior at the time of the incident".[87] During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to The Maricopa County Medical Examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.[88][dead link]

Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD).[89]

Richard Post
Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured.[citation needed] Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.[90] Post settled his claims against the Sheriff's office for $800,000.[91]

Brian Crenshaw
Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa County Jail for shoplifting. The injuries that led to his death were initially blamed on a fall from his bunk but were later discovered to have been the result of a brutal beating by jail guards on March 7, 2003. A lawsuit filed in The Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona by the lawyer for Crenshaw's family stated:

An external examination report of The Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office concluded that Brian's death was caused by "complications of blunt force trauma due to a fall." This conclusion was reached largely on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's relation of their "history" of Brian's injuries to the Medical Examiner's Office; a history that included the MCSO's implausible story that all of Brian's injuries were caused by a fall from his cell bed. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner conducted no autopsy; nor was the Maricopa County Medical Examiner informed by MCSO or The Maricopa County Correctional Health Services about Brian's beating on March 7, 2003 and/or related events. An independent autopsy report later narrowed the cause of Brian's death to peritonitis and sepsis secondary to the duodenal perforation. A fall from Brian's 4-foot, 2 inch bunk could not have simultaneously caused a broken neck, broken toes, and a duodenal perforation.[92]

The lawsuit against Arpaio and his office resulted in an award of $2 million.[93][dead link] As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.[94]

Conflicts with local news media
In July 2004, The Phoenix New Times published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings. In October, 2007, a Maricopa County special prosecutor served Village Voice Media, the Phoenix New Times' corporate parent, with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004. The Phoenix New Times then published the contents of the subpoena on October 18.[95] Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested and jailed by Maricopa Sheriff's Deputies on misdemeanor charges of revealing grand jury secrets after the publication of the subpoena.[96] On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case and fired the special prosecutor.[97][98] In a subsequent lawsuit, Lacey and Larkin won $3.75 million in damages for false arrest.[99]

On November 28, 2007, it was ruled that the subpoenas were not validly issued[100] and in April 2008, the New Times editors filed suit against Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.[101]

In 2009, The East Valley Tribune ran a series of articles that criticized the Maricopa County sheriff for a decline in normal police protection due to an increased focus towards arresting illegal immigrants.[9] The five-part series titled “Reasonable Doubt,” which received a Pulitzer Prize for local reporting, described "slow emergency response times and lax criminal enforcement."[102]

On December 23, 2009, The Arizona Republic published an editorial titled “The Conspiracy that won’t stop.”[103] The Editorial Board referenced a published letter written by the Yavapai County Attorney, Sheila Polk, titled “Arpaio, Thomas are abusing power” ”[104] in which Polk was critical of Arpaio. The Editorial Board claimed that “As a result of stepping forward, Polk now may join the fast-growing list of Arizona public officials forced to defend themselves against criminal investigations for the "crime" of having upset Arpaio and Thomas.”[103]

Critical organizations
Arpaio's practices have been criticized by organizations such as Amnesty International,[81] the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee,[105] and the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.[106] The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio "America's Worst Sheriff".[107]

[Methais]

Changes to jail operations
Arpaio began to serve inmates surplus food and limited meals to twice daily.[33]

He banned inmates from possessing "sexually explicit material" including Playboy magazine after female officers complained that inmates openly masturbated while viewing them, or harassed the officers by comparing their anatomy to the nude photos in the publications. The ban was challenged on First Amendment grounds but upheld by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.[34]

In February 2007, Arpaio instituted an in-house radio station he calls KJOE.[35] Arpaio's radio station broadcasts classical music, opera, Frank Sinatra hits, patriotic music and educational programming. It operates from the basement of the county jail for five days a week, four hours each day.

In March 2007, the Maricopa County Jail hosted "Inmate Idol",[36] a takeoff on the popular TV show American Idol.

Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted “Jail Cam”, a 24-hour Internet webcast of images from cameras in the Madison Street Jail, a facility which processed and housed pretrial detainees. The goals of the broadcasts were the deterrence of future crime and improved public scrutiny of jail procedures. The cameras showed arrestees being brought in handcuffed, fingerprinted, booked, and taken to holding cells; with the site receiving millions of hits per day.[37] Twenty-four former detainees brought suit against the Sheriff's office, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process had been violated.

Under Arpaio, the Maricopa County Jails have lost accreditation multiple times.[38] In September, 2008, the National Commission on Correctional Health Care terminated the accreditation of all Maricopa County Sheriff's Office jails for failure to maintain compliance with national standards, and providing false information about such compliance.[dead link][39][40] In October, 2008, a U.S. district court judge ruled that the grossly inadequate conditions at the Maricopa County Jail, overseen by Arpaio, are unconstitutional and jeopardize the health and safety of prisoners.[41]

Tent City
Arpaio set up a "tent city" as an extension of the Maricopa County Jail (33°25′40″N 112°07′26″W). Tent City is located in a yard next to a more permanent structure containing toilets, showers, an area for meals, and a day room.[42] It has become notable particularly because of Phoenix's extreme temperatures. Daytime temperatures inside the tents have been reported as high as 150 °F (65 °C) in the top bunks.[43] During the summer, fans and water are supplied in the tents.[44]

During the summer of 2003, when outside temperatures exceeded 110 °F (43 °C), which is higher than average, Arpaio said to complaining inmates, "It's 120 degrees in Iraq and the soldiers are living in tents, have to wear full body armor, and they didn't commit any crimes, so shut your mouths."[45] Inmates were given permission to wear only their pink underwear.

Tent City has been criticized by groups contending these are violations of human and constitutional rights, as well as by Erwin James, a murderer currently on parole from a life sentence in Britain, who wrote a series of articles about his experiences in British prisons for The Guardian.[46] In May 2013, Tent City ranked as one of the ten worst prisons in the United States, based on reporting in Mother Jones magazine.[47]

"Mesa Hilton"
Arpaio also maintains a facility called The Maricopa County Southeast Jail Facility. According to a news report from the Phoenix New Times, this facility has been in use since 2004 as an alternative to the Tent city. This facility has been alleged by the Phoenix New Times to be for celebrities and friends of Arpaio only. This facility is full of amenities and dubbed the "Mesa Hilton" as it is in stark contrast to the Tent City set up for normal inmates. It is where Adam Stoddard, Deputy of Arpaio's who stole confidential documents from an Attorney's file spent his time for contempt of court.[48]

Volunteer chain gangs
In 1995, Arpaio reinstituted chain gangs. In 1996, Arpaio expanded the chain gang concept by instituting female volunteer chain gangs.[49] Female inmates work seven hours a day (7 a.m. to 2 p.m.), six days a week. He has also instituted the world's first all-juvenile volunteer chain gang; volunteers earn high school credit toward a diploma.[50]

Pink underwear
One of Arpaio's most visible public relations actions was the introduction of pink underwear, which the Maricopa County Sheriff's website cites as being "world famous."[51] Arpaio subsequently started to sell customized pink boxers (with the Maricopa County Sheriff's logo and "Go Joe") as a fund-raiser for Sheriff's Posse Association. Despite allegations of misuse of funds received from these sales, Arpaio declined to provide an accounting for the money.[52]

Arpaio's success in gaining press coverage with the pink underwear resulted in him extending the use of the color. He introduced pink handcuffs, using the event to promote his book, Sheriff Joe Arpaio, America's Toughest Sheriff.[53]

Selective Service registration and organ donors[edit]
In 2001, Arpaio required all inmates 18 years and older to register for the Selective Service System. Such registration is mandatory for all U.S. males between 18 and 26 years of age, as well as for resident aliens of the same age regardless of their immigration status. Since 2001, a total of 28,000 inmates (including 9,000 illegal aliens) have registered for Selective Service.[54][55]

The Sheriff also started the "Have a Heart" program in which inmates may volunteer to be organ donors.[55]

Silencing critics
In 2008, when Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon called for a federal investigation into Arpaio's immigration enforcement tactics, Arpaio's office responded by demanding the mayor's emails and phone logs. Arpaio also had his critic Maricopa County Supervisor Don Stapley, a Republican, arrested on suspicion of failing to properly disclose business interests.[56] Stapley agreed to a $3.5 million settlement in his lawsuit against Arpaio, Thomas and the County for false arrest.[57]

Immigration enforcement
In 2005, the Arizona state legislature passed a state law making it a felony, punishable by up to two years in prison, to smuggle illegal aliens across the border. While already a federal crime, Arizona’s law, also known as the “Coyote law”, made it legal for local police to enforce immigration law and also classified persons being smuggled as co-conspirators subject to penalties as laid out in the law.[58]

Arpaio has instructed his sheriff's deputies and members of his civilian posse to arrest illegal aliens. Arpaio told the Washington Times, "My message is clear: if you come here and I catch you, you're going straight to jail.... I'm not going to turn these people over to federal authorities so they can have a free ride back to Mexico. I'll give them a free ride to my jail."[59]

On March 3, 2009, the United States Department of Justice "notified Arpaio of the investigation in a letter saying his enforcement methods may unfairly target Hispanics and Spanish-speaking people"[15] Arpaio denied any wrongdoing and stated that he welcomed the investigation, and would cooperate fully.[60] By May, 2009, Arpaio had hired a Washington D.C. lobbyist, who wrote to Obama administration officials suggesting that the decision to probe Arpaio had been driven by political rivalries and score settling.[61] In July, 2009, Arpaio publicly stated that he would not cooperate with the investigation.[62]

In October 2009, the Department of Homeland Security removed the authority of Arpaio's 160 federally trained deputies to make immigration arrests in the field. Despite the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, Arpaio has maintained that he will still pursue illegal aliens under Arizona state law.[63] As of 2012 he continues to do so.[64]

Improper clearance of MCSO cases
Reports show that, under Arpaio, the MCSO may be improperly clearing as many as 75% of cases without arrest or proper investigation.[65][66][67][68] The sheriff's office has failed to properly investigate serious crimes, including the rape of a 14 year old girl by classmates,[69][70] the rape of a 15 year old girl by two strangers,[71][72] and the rape of a 13 year old girl by her father.[71][73][dead link] These cases were "exceptionally cleared" without investigation or even identifying a suspect in one case which are not in accordance with the FBI standards for exceptional clearance.[71][74] In the case of the 15 year old girl, the case was closed within one month and before DNA testing was even complete, the 13 year old's because her mother did not want to "...pursue this investigation," and the 14 year old's because a suspect declined to come in for questioning.[69][71] In a statement to ABC15, the Sheriff's Office claimed, "The Goldwater Institute’s report cites the FBI’s Uniform Code Reporting handbook, which is a voluntary crime-reporting program to compile statistical information and reports. The UCR is not intended for oversight on how law enforcement agencies clear cases...The Sheriff’s Office has its own criteria for clearing cases."[70]

In an interview on the ABC Nightline news program, when asked to explain why 82 percent of cases were declared cleared by exception, Arpaio said "We do clear a higher percentage of that. I know that. We clear many, many cases – not 18 percent." Nightline contacted the MCSO after the interview and was told that of 7,346 crimes, only 944, or 15%, had been cleared by arrest.[75]

Webcasts of pretrial detainees
Starting in July 2000, the Maricopa County Sheriff's website hosted Jail Cam, a 24-hour Internet webcast of images from cameras in the Madison Street Jail, a facility which processed and housed only pretrial detainees. The stated goals of the broadcasts were the deterrence of future crime and improved public scrutiny of jail procedures. The cameras showed arrestees being brought in handcuffed, fingerprinted, booked, and taken to holding cells; with the site receiving millions of hits per day.[37] Twenty-four former detainees brought suit against the Sheriff's office, arguing that their Fourteenth Amendment rights of due process had been violated.

U.S. District Court Judge Earl H. Carroll held in favor of the former detainees, issuing an injunction ending the webcasts. By a 2 to 1 vote, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the injunction, with the majority opinion stating:

... Second, Sheriff Arpaio argues that the cameras are justified by the County’s interest in having its pretrial detention centers open to public scrutiny. We have given prison officials wide latitude in administering pretrial detention facilities, in guaranteeing detainees’ attendance at trial, and in promoting prison safety. But we fail to see how turning pretrial detainees into the unwilling objects of the latest reality show serves any of these legitimate goals. As the Supreme Court has recognized, "[i]nmates . . . are not like animals in a zoo to be filmed and photographed at will by the public or by media reporters, however ‘educational’ the process may be for others.[76][77][dead link]
In his dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Carlos Bea wrote:

... What the majority avoids—perhaps because of the all-too-predictable result—is to ask the question basic to any review questioning the validity of governmental action under a rational basis analysis: were the webcasts reasonably related to the purpose of deterring public behavior that could result in pretrial detention? The answer clearly is Yes. ... Similarly unexamined is the Sheriff’s purpose of providing transparency of jail operations as a civic good.
Sheriff Arpaio’s methods to achieve his purposes of public deterrence and governmental transparency may not suit the fine sensibilities of some group advocates and jurists. But absent a violation of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs—and I see none—such differences of opinion must be vindicated, if at all, in the ballot box, not in the courtroom.[77]
The US Supreme Court refused to hear an appeal of the case. Ultimately, Maricopa County was required to pay the detainees' legal costs and damages.[78][dead link]

Inmate complaints and lawsuits
From 2004 through November 2007, Arpaio was the target of 2,150 lawsuits in U.S. District Court and hundreds more in Maricopa County courts, with more than $50 million in claims being filed,[79] 50 times as many prison-conditions lawsuits as the New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Houston jail systems combined.[80] Allegations of cruel treatment of inmates as well as living conditions have been cited by Amnesty International in a report issued on the treatment of inmates in Maricopa County facilities.[81]

Recidivism
In 1998, Arpaio commissioned a study, by Arizona State University criminal justice professor Marie L. Griffin, to examine recidivism rates based on conditions of confinement. Comparing recidivism rates under Arpaio to those under his predecessor, the study found "there was no significant difference in recidivism observed between those offenders released in 1989–1990 and those released in 1994–1995."[82]

Inmate deaths and injuries
Family members of inmates who have died or been injured in jail custody have filed lawsuits against the sheriff’s office. Maricopa County has paid more than $43 million in settlement claims during Arpaio's tenure.[83]

Charles Agster
In August 2001, Charles Agster, a 33-year-old mentally handicapped man, died in the county jail three days after being forced by sheriff's officers into a restraint chair used for controlling combative arrestees. Agster's parents had been taking him to a psychiatric hospital because he was exhibiting paranoia, then called police when he refused to leave a convenience store where they had stopped en route. Officers took Agster to the Madison Street jail, placed a "spit hood" over his face and strapped him to the chair, where he had an apparent seizure and lost consciousness. He was declared brain dead three days later. A medical examiner later concluded that Agster died of complications of methamphetamine intoxication. In a subsequent lawsuit, an attorney for the sheriff's office described the amount of methamphetamine in Agster's system as 17 times the known lethal dose. The lawsuit resulted in a $9 million jury verdict against the county, the sheriff's office, and Correctional Health Services.[84]

Scott Norberg
One major controversy includes the 1996 death of inmate Scott Norberg, a former Brigham Young University football wide receiver, who died while in custody of the Sheriff's office.[85] Norberg was arrested for assaulting a police officer in Mesa, Arizona, after neighbors in a residential area had reported a delirious man walking in their neighborhood.[86] Arpaio's office repeatedly claimed Norberg was also high on methamphetamine, but a blood toxicology performed post-mortem was inconclusive. According to a toxological report, Norberg did have methamphetamine in his urine, though "there would be no direct effect caused by the methamphetamine on Norberg's behavior at the time of the incident".[87] During his internment, evidence suggests detention officers shocked Norberg several times with a stun-gun. According to an investigation by Amnesty International, Norberg was already handcuffed and face down when officers dragged him from his cell and placed him in a restraint chair with a towel covering his face. After Norberg's corpse was discovered, detention officers accused Norberg of attacking them as they were trying to restrain him. The cause of his death, according to The Maricopa County Medical Examiner, was due to "positional asphyxia". Sheriff Arpaio investigated and subsequently cleared detention officers of any criminal wrongdoing.[88][dead link]

Norberg’s parents filed a lawsuit against Arpaio and his office. The lawsuit was settled for $8.25 million (USD).[89]

Richard Post
Richard Post was a paraplegic inmate arrested in 1996 for possession of marijuana and criminal trespass. Post was placed in a restraint chair by guards and his neck was broken in the process. The event, caught on video, shows guards smiling and laughing while Post is being injured.[citation needed] Because of his injuries, Post has lost much of the use of his arms.[90] Post settled his claims against the Sheriff's office for $800,000.[91]

Brian Crenshaw
Brian Crenshaw was a legally blind and mentally disabled inmate who suffered fatal injuries while being held in Maricopa County Jail for shoplifting. The injuries that led to his death were initially blamed on a fall from his bunk but were later discovered to have been the result of a brutal beating by jail guards on March 7, 2003. A lawsuit filed in The Maricopa County Superior Court of Arizona by the lawyer for Crenshaw's family stated:

An external examination report of The Maricopa County Medical Examiner's Office concluded that Brian's death was caused by "complications of blunt force trauma due to a fall." This conclusion was reached largely on the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office's relation of their "history" of Brian's injuries to the Medical Examiner's Office; a history that included the MCSO's implausible story that all of Brian's injuries were caused by a fall from his cell bed. The Maricopa County Medical Examiner conducted no autopsy; nor was the Maricopa County Medical Examiner informed by MCSO or The Maricopa County Correctional Health Services about Brian's beating on March 7, 2003 and/or related events. An independent autopsy report later narrowed the cause of Brian's death to peritonitis and sepsis secondary to the duodenal perforation. A fall from Brian's 4-foot, 2 inch bunk could not have simultaneously caused a broken neck, broken toes, and a duodenal perforation.[92]

The lawsuit against Arpaio and his office resulted in an award of $2 million.[93][dead link] As in the Scott Norberg case, it was alleged that Arpaio's office destroyed evidence in the case. In the Crenshaw case, the attorney who represented the case before a jury alleged digital video evidence was destroyed.[94]

Conflicts with local news media
In July 2004, The Phoenix New Times published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings. In October, 2007, a Maricopa County special prosecutor served Village Voice Media, the Phoenix New Times' corporate parent, with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004. The Phoenix New Times then published the contents of the subpoena on October 18.[95] Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin were arrested and jailed by Maricopa Sheriff's Deputies on misdemeanor charges of revealing grand jury secrets after the publication of the subpoena.[96] On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case and fired the special prosecutor.[97][98] In a subsequent lawsuit, Lacey and Larkin won $3.75 million in damages for false arrest.[99]

On November 28, 2007, it was ruled that the subpoenas were not validly issued[100] and in April 2008, the New Times editors filed suit against Arpaio, County Attorney Andrew Thomas and Special Prosecutor Dennis Wilenchik.[101]

In 2009, The East Valley Tribune ran a series of articles that criticized the Maricopa County sheriff for a decline in normal police protection due to an increased focus towards arresting illegal immigrants.[9] The five-part series titled “Reasonable Doubt,” which received a Pulitzer Prize for local reporting, described "slow emergency response times and lax criminal enforcement."[102]

On December 23, 2009, The Arizona Republic published an editorial titled “The Conspiracy that won’t stop.”[103] The Editorial Board referenced a published letter written by the Yavapai County Attorney, Sheila Polk, titled “Arpaio, Thomas are abusing power” ”[104] in which Polk was critical of Arpaio. The Editorial Board claimed that “As a result of stepping forward, Polk now may join the fast-growing list of Arizona public officials forced to defend themselves against criminal investigations for the "crime" of having upset Arpaio and Thomas.”[103]

Critical organizations
Arpaio's practices have been criticized by organizations such as Amnesty International,[81] the American Civil Liberties Union, the Arizona Ecumenical Council, the American Jewish Committee,[105] and the Arizona chapter of the Anti-Defamation League.[106] The editorial board of The New York Times called Arpaio "America's Worst Sheriff".[107]

I'm too lazy to read all that, but I'm assuming somewhere in there is something along the lines of "OMG SEE LOOK HOW RACIST HE IS!"

Even if he's the biggest racist to ever live, does that somehow make the lawsuit over the laws he's enforcing in the OP any less stupid?

[Johnny Five]

TL : DR

RACIST!!!!!!!!!!

[Warriorbird]

I'm too lazy to read all that, but I'm assuming somewhere in there is something along the lines of "OMG SEE LOOK HOW RACIST HE IS!"

Even if he's the biggest racist to ever live, does that somehow make the lawsuit over the laws he's enforcing in the OP any less stupid?

I'm an ACLU member. It's a ridiculous lawsuit. There's so much other stuff they could go after him for. I think it's an attempt at getting the law's constitutionality looked at but it's a foolish one.

[Methais]

I think it's an attempt at getting the law's constitutionality looked at but it's a foolish one.

Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly...trying to make the point saying that enforcing state laws that make it illegal for a person to use information belonging to someone else is unconstitutional, at least according to what you think they're going for?

[Warriorbird]

Let me make sure I'm understanding this correctly...trying to make the point saying that enforcing state laws that make it illegal for a person to use information belonging to someone else is unconstitutional, at least according to what you think they're going for?

I think they're actually going to try to suggest the law not apply to people who are doing it for employment if they have no other avenue. It's really dumb.

[AnticorRifling]

So are we against the changes in the jail or for them? I can't tell based on the plain copy/paste of wikipedia with no commentary or opinion from the copier...

[Sorcasaurus]

So are we against the changes in the jail or for them? I can't tell based on the plain copy/paste of wikipedia with no commentary or opinion from the copier...

I believe it was a pro pink underwear case.

[AnticorRifling]

I believe it was a pro pink underwear case.

I'll allow it.

[Warriorbird]

So are we against the changes in the jail or for them? I can't tell based on the plain copy/paste of wikipedia with no commentary or opinion from the copier...

It was a response to suggesting that all that was against Arpaio is claims of racism.

He's done terrible things to prisoners and lost suits related to several of them. Reducing all of his misconduct to just the pink underwear thing (which I still think assaults people's dignity, and we're not re-enacting the Scarlet Letter) is also doing a disservice to all the people who've been harmed by his actions.

[AnticorRifling]

It was a response to suggesting that all that was against Arpaio is claims of racism.

He's done terrible things to prisoners and lost suits related to several of them. Reducing all of his misconduct to just the pink underwear thing (which I still think assaults people's dignity, and we're not re-enacting the Scarlet Letter) is also doing a disservice to all the people who've been harmed by his actions.

An assault on their dignity are you serious?

[Warriorbird]

An assault on their dignity are you serious?

Definitely reduce all the actions of somebody to harm people and the millions of dollars he's paid out in fines to pink underwear. Please do. I think jails, which house people before trial, typically, are not the place to actively try to humilate people. If you do, you can certainly say so.

[Gelston]

Definitely reduce all the actions of somebody to harm people and the millions of dollars he's paid out in fines to pink underwear. Please do. I think jails, which house people before trial, typically, are not the place to actively try to humilate people. If you do, you can certainly say so.

He did the pink underwear in pretrial jail? I thought it was only for convicts. Jails can hold people for pretrial, but that is generally if they can't afford to bond out (or if bond is refused by the judge).

[Warriorbird]

He did the pink underwear in pretrial jail? I thought it was only for convicts. Jails can hold people for pretrial, but that is generally if they can't afford to bond out (or if bond is refused by the judge).

He's stated multiple times that they're all criminals and he does most of his stunts to pretrial people.

[Gelston]

He's stated multiple times that they're all criminals and he does most of his stunts to pretrial people.

As for people complaining about being seen and crap when booked into jail, well, it is public record. Open up the inquisitor (or whatever version of the paper you have where you are) and it lists everyone booked into jail and what charge was filed. Guilty or not.

[Gelston]

Eitherway, I still think the guy is an attention whore. He goes a little too far on some things, but that being said, Jail shouldn't be a nice place. I don't think he should lay things down on pretrial folks, but the stuff he had for convicts, like the Tent City and the Volunteer chain gangs? All for it.

[Warriorbird]

Eitherway, I still think the guy is an attention whore. He goes a little too far on some things, but that being said, Jail shouldn't be a nice place. I don't think he should lay things down on pretrial folks, but the stuff he had for convicts, like the Tent City and the Volunteer chain gangs? All for it.

I don't think the chain gangs are negative. I do think not letting inmates have adequate medical care in the Tent City, the failure to investigate sex crimes, and all the conspiracy/corruption stuff are all damning. People have a tendency to only see the publicity stunts and not the man's abuses.

[Johnny Five]

I think we should just do this. Anyone with a life sentence with no parole, better learn to garden bitch.
http://content8.flixster.com/movie/27/30/273002_det.jpg
AND HE CAN RUN IT!

[Methais]

It was a response to suggesting that all that was against Arpaio is claims of racism.

He's done terrible things to prisoners and lost suits related to several of them. Reducing all of his misconduct to just the pink underwear thing (which I still think assaults people's dignity, and we're not re-enacting the Scarlet Letter) is also doing a disservice to all the people who've been harmed by his actions.

How do you know that there aren't guys in there that like pink underwear?

Sexist.

Why do you hate gay inmates?

[Warriorbird]

How do you know that there aren't guys in there that like pink underwear?

Sexist.

Why do you hate gay inmates?

Curiously some other folks seem to agree with me.

http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/free/20130304joe-arpaio-pink-underwear-appeal.html

[Gelston]

Pink used to be the color for boys like a century ago.

[Tgo01]

Shouldn't Democrats be applauding Arpaio in his attempt to do away with the typical "blue/boys" and "pink/girls" attitude? I thought Liberals were all over that gender neutral shit? But now, like, doing so is causing inmates harm?

[Sorcasaurus]

The 9th Circuit said dressing inmates in pink underwear — a hallmark of Arpaio — appeared to be punishment without legal justification and noted that it’s fair to infer that the selection of pink as the underwear color was meant to symbolize the loss of prisoners’ masculinity.

The Sheriff’s Office and Vogel’s attorney didn’t immediately return a request for comment on Monday.

Early in his 20-year tenure as sheriff of Maricopa County, Arpaio won points with voters for making inmates wear pink underwear, housing them in canvas tents during triple-digit summer heat, and dressing them in old-time striped jail uniforms.

Arpaio’s attorneys wanted the nation’s highest court to examine whether having pink boxers as part of the standard jail uniform can constitute punishment before a trial is held.

It's curious how they ruled pink underwear is "punishment". Isn't there already prison issued clothing? All the same color, no choice etc. If I'm very against orange because it makes me feel less masculine, do I get to opt out of the standard issue orange jumpsuit? (This is an example, not all prisons use the orange jumper)

I'd argue that forcing inmates into bunks in tents on triple digit days is far worse punishment than the color of their undergarments, yet that seems to be breezed over in all cases of is unusual practices.

Old timey uniforms? Badass! If/when I ever go to jail, I want one!

Also, it does look like some of his practices were being enforced before trial. That's just a very big no-no and I'm surprised it hasn't gotten him in more trouble.