Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Judges Junk Jailcam

Posted by michael on from the panopticon-foiled-for-now dept.

theodp writes "With one dissenting opinion, the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that an AZ sheriff's use of Webcams to broadcast prisoners being booked and held in cells constituted a profoundly undesirable level of humiliation, rejecting the sheriff's argument that the Webcasts deterred crime and showed the public how jails work." The Village Voice has a good article from a few years ago detailing how the jailcams work.

5 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. It's not only the cams by The+Bungi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    It's the chain gangs and the pink underwear and the striped black 'n white uniforms and the 120F tent cities he runs.

    I don't think Joe Arpaio (the sheriff's name here for those of you who don't live in Maricopa county, Phoenix or points south) has really done much to lower crime with his "tough ways". Sometimes I think he's more of a joke than anything else.

    But he's quite powerful in the political sense. And taking down the cams ain't gonna make much difference. The guy needs to go. Well, hopefully this coming election.

  2. Conviction without a trial by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The jail cams in question were for the holding cells of suspects, not of convicted criminals. Thus, the ruling that cameras were not allowed -- it amounts to conviction without a trial.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  3. Sheriff Joe Loses AGAIN! :) by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 4, Interesting
    "The San Francisco-based U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed on Friday a lower court decision and ruled against the online venture of Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio. The sheriff had argued that Webcasts deterred crime and showed the public how jails work."

    Arpaio never met a reporter he didn't like, nor a PR stunt he wouldn't pull. Local opinion is that he's not a sheriff, he just plays one on TV.

    His jailhouse tactics have cost the county millions in legal fees and settlements, and he is accused at the moment of having set up a squad of detectives to harass political opposition (in AZ, a county sheriff is an elected official).

  4. Too Scary by blooba · · Score: 5, Interesting
    A friend of mine was recently arrested. After booking, he was thrown into a large holding cell that has 30 bunk beds. At the time, the cell contained almost 70 suspects. Soon after he entered the cell, a riot broke out inside it, and he was forced to fight for his life. He witnessed suspects bashing each other's skulls against the wall and against the floor. A few of his fellow inmates could not handle the terrifying stress, and began sobbing. These delicate souls were then sexually abused by other suspects.

    During that same weekend in incarceration, my friend witnessed the brutal beating of a suspect by three armed guards. The suspect had not assaulted anyone, but was being verbally abusive to the guards. The suspect lost consciousness, a lot of blood from a nasty head wound, and had to be carted to the infirmary.

    Where did all this happen? Good ole NYC.

    All of this happened in front of multiple surveillance cameras. I would surely like to review those tapes myself, but the general public is not allowed access to them.

    What do you all suggest we do? Perhaps a public oversight committee that reviews the prison/jail surveillance tapes? This committe might be comprised of responsible citizens, selected via a process similar to jury duty selection.

  5. Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by real+gumby · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Since we have this notion of someone being "innocent until proven guilty," I can see why having a webcam on while someone is being *booked* can be a problem.

    Actually, that's an especially good time for it. Arrests must be public. Yes, it's horribly embarrassing to be arrested, and I will feel ashamed if I am ever arrested, but secret arrests are tyrannical.

    Your signature reads "The cure for 1984 is 1776." Well, why does the fourth amendment to the US constitution prohibit unreasonable seizures? It's because the british used arbitrary and secret arrests to lock up troublemakers (arguably they did so as well against the IRA). How can you have habeas corpus (or look here -- warning pdf) if you don't know who was arrested? (sorry, another pdf)

    Once you've been convicted (or even once you're booked) it seems unreasonable though I agree with the poster who said he'd like it for his own protection!