Slashdot Mirror


Judges Junk Jailcam

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.

91 of 447 comments (clear)

  1. thankfully by proj_2501 · · Score: 4, Funny

    jailBAITcam is still operational...

  2. Hey! I liked that camera! by slughead · · Score: 5, Funny

    My friend got arrested for [something :P] and I had a field day watching him sit in his cell downtown.

    I asked him later "hey what did that bum want who talked to you?" he was so pissed.

  3. WTF?! by Anita+Coney · · Score: 4, Funny

    How is this going to effect my "lifetime" subscription to www.hornywomenbehindbars.com?!

    --
    If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
    1. Re:WTF?! by Kenja · · Score: 5, Funny
      "How is this going to effect my "lifetime" subscription to www.hornywomenbehindbars.com?!"

      Well, it means we're going to have to kill you. You realy should have read the license agreement before selecting the "lifetime" subscription option.

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
  4. I would feel safer if... by BrokenStructure · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I ever ended up in jail and I knew there was a jail cam. It's like putting a mirror next to an item that's commonly stolen in a store. If a person feels like they're being watched, they're a lot less likely to try anything 'funny'.

    1. Re:I would feel safer if... by nebaz · · Score: 3, Funny

      If a person feels like they're being watched, they're a lot less likely to try anything 'funny'.

      Yeah. If they try anything funny, we'll just put them in jail. Oh wait.

      --
      Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
    2. Re:I would feel safer if... by underpar · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Agreed. Knowing that it would humiliate someone, he might jump at the chance. Not everyone in jail is afraid of being caught breaking the law for some reason.

    3. Re:I would feel safer if... by RubberChainsaw · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How would having live a camera in your toilet make you feel safer? You're still going to get molested in the showers, only this time it'll be on live xxx internet feeds.

      I think that our current prison situation is unacceptable. The amount of rape, violence and criminal behavior that takes place within prisons makes them unsuitable for rehabilitation. Prisons are a breeding ground for diseases like HIV and Hep C. Prison officials aren't doing enough to stop the rape and spread of disease. They're too busy making their millions off of the prisons to care.

      I think the public does need to be more exposed to the problems with our prisons. But these jail cams in arizona aren't the way to go about doing that. These cameras aren't being used for education or information. They're being used as exploitation of the prisoners. Putting cameras in the women's toilets is not going to help teenagers stay away from crime.

      The sheriff responsible for these cameras is reknowned for his "humiliation" tactics in dealing with criminals. I strongly disagree with his approach in this matter.

      --
      I welcome our new 99% overlords.
    4. Re:I would feel safer if... by kfg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As one of the respondents so graphically notes the issue is not the recording of jailhouse events, but the public broadcast of same.

      Do you really want yourself, unjustly accused in the first place (and what social value is served by public humiliation of the unjustly accused?), publicly becoming Bubba's bitch? Recorded for all time?

      The only possible real value of this to the public is actually to place the law officers on their best behavior.

      To gain maximum value from this we would need to live in a society that does not equate accusation with guilt, but, unfortunately, we do not.

      KFG

    5. Re:I would feel safer if... by nizo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      That is why I like the idea of the camera, just not the idea of broadcasting it to the world. The tapes should be available with a court order (in the cases of abuse or whatever), but I don't think any yahoo(tm) should be able to see the folks in jail.

    6. Re:I would feel safer if... by Osty · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think the public does need to be more exposed to the problems with our prisons. But these jail cams in arizona aren't the way to go about doing that. These cameras aren't being used for education or information. They're being used as exploitation of the prisoners. Putting cameras in the women's toilets is not going to help teenagers stay away from crime.

      I agree with your points, but there's something you missed -- these are jail cameras, not prison cameras. These are being used during booking and holding (ie, jail), not during incarceration (ie, prison). You're not likely to be ass-raped while in a holding cell in a jail.

    7. Re:I would feel safer if... by killjoe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      When Rumsfeld was expressing his *shock* and *indignation* about the prisoner absue photos he kept saying "this is does not represent American values" and such crap. Of course everybody knows that's a lie. We Americans love that shit. We are glued to any television show that purports to humilitate somebody and of course all of our movies involve heavy doses of violence.

      I am afraid this is just the tip of the iceberg. Look for far worse to come down the pike.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    8. Re:I would feel safer if... by Epistax · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Do you really want yourself, unjustly accused in the first place (and what social value is served by public humiliation of the unjustly accused?), publicly becoming Bubba's bitch? Recorded for all time?

      If it happened, uh duh yes I want a record of it so he'll be hopping off to prison for the rest of his life. I don't care even if a jury sees it. Vanity is not more important than justice.

    9. Re:I would feel safer if... by kfg · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let's try this again. We aren't discussing making a record. We're discussing publicly broadcasting same in real time.

      I don't care even if a jury sees it. Vanity is not more important than justice.

      Even? A jury seeing it is the primary requirement for justice. Your neighbor not seeing it may well also be a requirement for justice.

      KFG

    10. Re:I would feel safer if... by UserGoogol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That would still leave crimes of passion (where they don't have enough time to think about the consquences) and organized crime (where they have the resources to avoid jail fairly well.)

      --
      "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
    11. Re:I would feel safer if... by kfg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Bubba gets in trouble when you accuse him, just as you are in trouble (and thus in a holding cell with Bubba in the first place) because someone accused you of something?

      You then play the tape at trial to convict him, where the judge may well protect you with an order that the jury alone can view it.

      I can fully understand your wish to prosecute Bubba, but where do you get the idea that it's a choice between broadcast on the Superbowl and Bubba not getting in trouble?

      KFG

    12. Re:I would feel safer if... by malelder · · Score: 2, Informative

      Being an Arizona resident, i personally love what Sheriff Joe has done. And if you think the jailcam is a rough idea, spend a weekend in the tent prison.

      Friends wife had to stay 2 days there for a DUI. Asked her later what it was like, and the part that sticks with me was "They told us to shake out our shoes in the morning before putting them on, because the scorpions are attracted to the sweat."

      I use the taxi a lot more often now (;

      --


      Yuma, AZ...You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.
    13. Re:I would feel safer if... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So all the other kids will be saying to Epistax Jr. "Hey, I've got that video of your daddy getting assripped by Bubba. He cried like a little girl, but he obviously enjoyed it, 'cos his winkle was standing up!"

      Public humiliation shouldn't be a routine part of imprisonment, and it should never be accorded to those who haven't been found guilty yet. I'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that no one wants anything like Abu Graib happening in this country.

    14. Re:I would feel safer if... by flacco · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Ask any inmate... they've all been unjustly accused, and are innocent. :rolleyes:

      yeah, like those dozens/hundreds of damn bad guys who were just barely spared the death penalty after being cleared by DNA testing.

      and those countless prisoners wrongly convicted of lesser crimes getting gang-raped on a regular basis because people like you are content to let innocent men suffer immeasurably just to satisfy your sick, abstract desire for revenge.

      --
      pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
    15. Re:I would feel safer if... by chimpo13 · · Score: 2

      Very nice, but you left out people put to death who later were found out to be innocent.

  5. The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by Rude+Turnip · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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. If (theoretically) everyone in the world can see John Doe getting booked for a crime which he may or may not have committed, how can he ever get a fair jury?

    1. Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by Saige · · Score: 5, Informative

      Joe Arpaio has made a career of mistreating people that are being held for crimes they are not yet even found guilty of. He's been in trouble before for various activities of his before, including feeding those under his charge food that has been known to be bad - such as moldy bologna sandwiches.

      That's right, all you have to do to enter Arpaio's 'House of Cruelty and Being Treated as an Animal' is be arrested for a crime. The police could be wrong, which is not uncommon, but you've already been treated as if you were guilty by that bastard.

      Not only have I wished Arpaio would lose the office, but I've wished that he would be arrested and found guilty of thousands of counts of cruelty.

      --
      "You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
    2. Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by carlos_benj · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hey, I've tried to get on juries in the past. I'd like to participate in the process. My work schedule has either always been a problem or they culled me before I ever got to the interview. Maybe it's because I bring reading material rather than watch TV - "No, not him. Attention span may be too long. Hey, what about the guy trying to channel surf using a candybar for a remote control...?"

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    3. Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by volsung · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not to mention that his never-ending stream of publicity stunts cause tons of lawsuits, many of which the county has to settle with cash. Regardless of the morality of his prisoner treatment practices, he's costing the taxpayers in AZ a lot of money and ignoring problems (like understaffing of prisons) which have a real impact on things.

    4. Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by sulli · · Score: 4, Funny

      Why find him guilty? Just throw him in his own jail pending trial.

      --

      sulli
      RTFJ.
    5. Re:The problem is with *who* the cams are on... by the+gnat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      This guy was recently profiled on "Penn & Teller: Bullshit!", specifically their episode about the War on Drugs. Apparently he used to station cops at the county border to do random stops and searches for contraband. Towards the end of the episode he snorts with derision at the suggestion that we should have freedom to choose our destinies, and declares that the government must enforce social norms. The existence of people like that is the best argument I've yet seen in favor of drug legalization.

    6. 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!

  6. Maybe not before proven guilty... by blogtim · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see the point that this is no different than celebrities or politicians being booked and the media showing up. How about if it were done after one is proven guilty - sort of as an extra punishment.

    --
    Visit Tim's Journal, yes?
  7. Innocent until proven guilty by Linwood · · Score: 2, Insightful

    guess the sheriff forgets that small rule in our american society, alot of people goto jail for doing something then get it thrown out or dismissed in court, therfor making them not guilty, and not criminals. (though this is abused sometimes, there really are some innocent people that do goto jail for a night or so)

  8. 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.

    1. Re:It's not only the cams by The+Bungi · · Score: 2, Informative
      No, most definitely not. However, I don't know if you've ever experienced summer in Phoenix. Putting prisioners in a tent on a parking lot with a rinky electric fan is not exactly humane.

      I don't have a problem with making them as uncomfortable as possible, but not to the point that you can get yourself into trouble because one of them dies from heat exhaustion or dehydration. Also, these are not violent offenders or anything like that. They're petty criminals with drug problems and so on.

      In any case, the sum of the parts (the cams, the tents, the chain gangs, etc) is what makes Arpaio look like a grandstanding goof.

    2. Re:It's not only the cams by Atzanteol · · Score: 2, Insightful

      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

      Sometimes jail is actually just about punishment too you know...

      I like his policies, though I would probably agree with him more if he were running a prison rather than just a holding cell (where people not yet found guilty are held as well).

      --
      "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"

      - Charles Darwin
    3. Re:It's not only the cams by finkployd · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's the chain gangs and the pink underwear and the striped black 'n white uniforms and the 120F tent cities he runs.

      The 120F tent cities seems a bit much, has anyone ever died from that? (I imagine not, or the ACLU would descend on that town like the alien spacecraft in Independence Day). The rest I am all in favor of. How is pink underwear and striped black n white uniforms bad?

      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".

      I looked into it quickly and found that it is having little effect. Crime is seems to neither be going up or down. However it is significantly cheaper for the taxpayers.

      The guy needs to go. Well, hopefully this coming election.

      My understanding is that he is quite popular in the area. I doubt someone running against him on the platform of "making life easier for the criminals at taxpayer expense" is going to make much headway.

      Finkployd

    4. Re:It's not only the cams by Gailin · · Score: 3, Informative

      In 1997 Arpaio entered a plea agreement with the DOJ to improve conditions, yet in the last 7 years he has failed to do so.

      Unfortunately it isn't exactly news when someone falls ill to heat exhaustion in jail.

      I know of two people personally who suffered heat related issues while being housed for minor offenses.

      Here is a list from the person running against him in the election that lists quite a few issues the jail has had throughout the years.

      http://www.sabanforsheriff.com/news/sonorannews% 20 20040708.htm

      Please keep in mind that most of these people are there for a few days to a year or so. These aren't rapists or murderers. These are people who have been arrested for minor offenses, probation violation, or are awaiting trial.

      Gailin

      --
      I wish there was a fscking blue pill
    5. Re:It's not only the cams by TwistedGreen · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No. I cannot disagree more. Jail is never about punishment. It is nobody's job to punish anyone, and it is certainly not the job of the the state to dole out punishments. Jail should purely be about rehabilitation, and if it isn't about rehabilitation then we have a problem. People like this twisted fuck are sick and need rehabilitation themselves.

    6. Re:It's not only the cams by WolfWithoutAClause · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Jail should purely be about rehabilitation

      Purely?

      "Sorry, you've shown insufficient remourse for illegally downloading Michael Jackson's album; so you're going to have to stay in prison for another 5 years. You're clearly not rehabilitated." :-)

      Historically, that's what it really meant; some people never got out of the joint for relatively minor crimes. Is that just?

      Hint: no.

      --

      -WolfWithoutAClause

      "Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"
    7. Re:It's not only the cams by cr0sh · · Score: 2, Informative
      The 120F tent cities seems a bit much, has anyone ever died from that?

      Yes, it is easily possible to die from 120F - dehydration and heat stroke are common causes. I am not sure anyone has dies of such causes in Tent City, though (New Times would have published such a story if it had). It's only a matter of time, I suppose.

      You see, these tents have *no* air conditioning - not even a swamp cooler. Inside the tents, you have hot and stifling air (they are surplus military tents - heavy canvas things with little ventilation), outside, blinding sun and dirt with hardly any shade. Mix in 1000+ inmates and only a few (3-5, IIRC) guards and you have the making of a disaster.

      Now, I am not saying jails and prisons should be comfortable places - but the majority of people in Tent City are there awaiting trial - that is, this is a holding area for presumably innocent people. These people (all people - including bona-fide convicted prisoners) have rights - among those rights are to be treated in a humane manner, not to be faced with "cruel and unusual" punishment. There is a reason Sheriff Joe's Tent City and jail system is on Amnesty International's list of most abusive prison systems worldwide (yeah, it ranks right up there with some dictatorship's prisons - hoo boy!).

      Sheriff Joe's antics have not been cheap for the taxpayer - I cannot recount how much taxpayer money is going out in the form of lawsuits the county has lost (somewhere around 15-20 million, IIRC). He is popular with the voters, though I can't imagine how, given the abuses his organization has doled out to the innocent, presumed innocent, and guilty alike - not to mention his shady financial dealings, along with that prostitution sting f'up last year where it was found out his deputies were getting serviced by the women they were supposed to be arresting - leading to the County Attorney having to throw out all of the arrests (kinda difficult to prosecute such a case, dontcha know)...

      Arizona residents who vote for this man are either stupid, blind or both.

      --
      Reason is the Path to God - Anon
    8. Re:It's not only the cams by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On death: France surrenders to 104F heat. Almost 15,000 dead. And thats without the tents in the sun.

      On the army: When you're in the army, you spend months training in whatever weather conditions happen to be that day. By the end of that, you're up for standing in a tent in Iraq. Thats what training is for.

      You seem to think that if the majority of the people there are convicted criminals, thats "good enough". I guess you advocate shooting everyone and letting God sort them out. Maybe you think you live in a world where people who are arrested are arrested because they did something wrong. I live in the real world in a city called Houston, where not many years ago the cops decided to bust some street racers, only they got there and nobody was racing, so they arrested EVERYONE at a nearby K-Mart, and when that abuse of power couldn't get them hard enough, they arrested everyone eating dinner at the Sonic next door. Over 400 arrests, every single one of them was overturned, at the expense of the city as it requires a lawsuit in order to have the arrest record expunged. Just imagine what would have happened if these people had been treated in the ways you're defending.

      And here's your cite for the 60 people set free on that prostitution sting.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
  9. 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.
    1. Re:Conviction without a trial by Dachannien · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Don't they take a mug shot of you during booking? And we've seen those turn up online frequently for celebs, so are they a matter of public record?

  10. Shame and Disgust in the Law by enforcer999 · · Score: 2, Informative

    I read an interesting article today that discussed shame and the law that is right along these lines.

  11. 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).

    1. Re:Sheriff Joe Loses AGAIN! :) by tootlemonde · · Score: 5, Informative

      His jailhouse tactics have cost the county millions in legal fees and settlements...

      An article in Harper's from April, 2001, says: "So far, the total bill for jury awards and settlements is approximately $15 million."

      The article notes:

      Arpaio has reduced neither the crime rate nor the rate of recidivism in Phoenix. He has had no discernible effect whatsoever. He serves only to con the public into thinking that something is being done about crime. Phoenix is bucking the national trend: as crime falls nationwide, it increases here. Especially violent crime. In 1992, 136 people were murdered in the city; in 1999, 214. There were more murders, rapes, and car theft in 1999 than in the previous year. Arpaio's defenders can argue that the population is increasing, so the statistics are misleading. But this is disingenuous. Most homicides--which have increased by nearly two thirds since 1992 while the population has grown only by a quarter--are not committed by opportunistic yuppies coming here to work dot-corn jobs. The reality is indisputable: in Phoenix, your chance of getting killed is better since Arpaio took office.

      However, Arpaio has a high approval rating, is regularly re-elected and his endorsement is sought by nearly all politicians.

  12. Having been there before... by Zaranne · · Score: 5, Funny

    from the been-there-done-that department

    Humilation is one thing. Great, show it to grade school kids and they might think twice in the future. But I for one, do not want my "adventures in the drunk tank" broadcast for all to see. Barfing on the cop at the scene of my accident was enough.

    --
    So when is the Hawkeye movie coming out?
  13. can work both ways by bigpat · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Remember that openness, while embarrassing for some, could also help protect those arrested from abuse.

    1. Re:can work both ways by Alien+Being · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hint: The cops know where the cameras are.

  14. A tough one, but... by nlawalker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It seems to me that individuals in jail still have rights, no matter how detestable they are, and I'm pretty sure that having a camera trained on you 24x7 against your will violates those rights.

  15. If I was in prison I would WANT jailcam by Forge · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If I was in prison I would WANT jailcam all over the prison and in my cell.

    Ordinary security cameras protect you from your fellow prisoners by alerting guards to misconduct. broadcasting this on the web and archiving images on the same site protects you from misconduct by guards. Trust me... No guard wants his mother to see him beating a prisoner to a bloody pulp and then sodomizing him.

    of course to work right you need lots of cameras protected from abuse and positioned so you can see who tampers with them. My only loss as a prisoner in such a facility is that I have to be more cautious in my masturbation.
    Prison is about taking away some freedoms of a person convicted of a crime. I prefer to louse my privacy than my religious or sexual preference. Never mind life and limb.

    --
    --= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?
  16. Re:Huh? by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think it was a perfectly ACCEPTABLE level of humiliation for prisoners.

    It would probably be a perfectly acceptable level of humiliation for convicts. The problem was that the cams were broadcasting from the holding cells for suspects.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  17. Irony by FlimFlamboyant · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So let's see here. It's ok for national television to display home video footage of police beating the snot out of these people on the street, but as soon as the perp is dragged in to prison, now we must spare them the "humiliation" of broadcasting their incarceration on the Internet?

    --
    But God demonstrates his love for us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us - (Romans 5:8)
  18. Innocent until proven guilty by ucblockhead · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I find it disturbing the number of ways that law enforcement is finding to punish people for merely being arrested.

    We're supposed to be punishing people for being convicted not for being arrested.

    --
    The cake is a pie
  19. Re:Nah. by Carnildo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    There is a camera in the cop car that pulls you over.

    The camera in the cop car isn't being broadcast to the whole world. These jailcams were.

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  20. but COPS is okay? by deus_X_machina · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I'm all for freedom of privacy and not humiliating people... but c'mon, what about COPS? They feature criminals kicking, screaming, and drunkenly making themselves look like idiots on national television! Even if they give their consent to have it played on TV, it seems like most of them are too out of it to know what's going on...

    --
    "In a Democracy, people get the kind of government they deserve." -Winston Churchill
  21. Re:Huh? by Tsu+Dho+Nimh · · Score: 2, Insightful
    They were NOT convicted, just being booked after being arrested. There's a world of difference.

    there's the "treated as innocent until proven guilty" part of US tradition that you seem to be overlooking: if you were booked because you matched the description of a bank robber, would you want your booking to be shown to the world? Especially when your release when your fingerprints didn't match those at the scene took place off-camera?

  22. A good start, a long way to go. by deacon · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Good, someone that realizes that people in custody are human beings.

    Next, a realization that prison rape is not "funny", is a violation of basic human rights, and that /. comments about "bubba the love bunny" deserve a -1, flamebait mod, not a +1 funny.

    In a civilized society, prisoners are sentenced to time in jail.

    They should not be subject to torture at the hands of other inmates, and it is the duty of the State to prevent such abuses.

    1. Re:A good start, a long way to go. by huchida · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Also, it should be pointed out that not everyone in prison is a violent criminal. Many, for example, are otherwise "ordinary" folks who are there for using drugs. Our courts are wildly and completely random when it comes to sentencing recreational drug users (and I'm not even talking about dealers, that's more of a grey area), and what may be three months probation and an order to attend rehab for one person in one court in one city may be a five-year sentence in another.

  23. Great by fiannaFailMan · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So it's okay to fry a man to death but it's not okay to broadcast pictures of people being locked up because it's 'humiliating.' If both of these issues went before the 9th circuit then I'm sure there'd be a bit more consistency.

    --
    Drill baby drill - on Mars
    1. Re:Great by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Insightful

      How is it inconsistent? The camera thing is happening to people who have not been convicted. Executions happen to people who have been convicted.

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
  24. Re:I always wondered by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ah- but what about his recidivism rate? Or is that also faked?

    And before you say it- if I was a criminal I'd want to get the hell out of that county also, so his recidivism rate might just be the "scare them out of the county" rate.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  25. Oh joy. Sheriff Joe again. by 72beetle · · Score: 5, Informative

    Just in case you're interested on what the aforementioned sheriff is up to THESE days, take a look at the latest New Times.

    -72

    --
    -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
  26. People on COPS sign a waiver by revscat · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm all for freedom of privacy and not humiliating people... but c'mon, what about COPS?

    Believe it or not, everyone you have ever seen on COPS has signed a waiver giving the show the right to show their faces on TV. The producers give people $500 to entice them to do so, but ultimately it's their choice. So every drunken crack whore you've seen on that show has signed away their rights, which means COPS says nothing about the case in discussion here.

    1. Re:People on COPS sign a waiver by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny
      The producers give people $500 to entice them to ... sign a waiver giving the show the right to show their faces on TV.

      Good. Maybe they can use some of that money to go out and buy a fucking shirt.

  27. Next Reality Show? by JOhn-E+G · · Score: 2, Funny

    I would think all the reality show entities would jump on this to make it their next show.
    They could title it "NYPD Jail Cell 24/7" and it could run right after Cops on Fox!

  28. Re:Huh? by stephanruby · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Wasn't that the POINT? Isn't jail supposed to be unfun/annoying/humiliating?

    For the most part, jail is for suspects awaiting trial and prison is for convicts convicted of something.

  29. How many white people would you see? by underpar · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I bet if they left something like that on they'd have to lay off the minorites. In Tulsa, latinos are labeled the same as whites when they get booked. A camera may be more truthful.

  30. unobstructed view of the women's toilet !! by javaxman · · Score: 4, Informative
    From TFA:
    But some of the images are more invasive: strip searches, female prisoners in various stages of undress, and, up until late April, a constant, unobstructed view of the women's toilet and the women using it.

    Seriously?!? No wonder he lost the case. Way to hand your detainees tons of county cash, bozo. This type of guy in elected office is why we need strong anti-abuse laws on the books, and stricter supervision of prison operations. More interestingly, why isn't this bigger nationwide news? It would seem to have all of the makings of a major story, and yet I've only heard of it on /.

    Of course, though the article states the toilet-cam as fact, the last line in the article has some hapless spokesdrone denying that charge... anyone know if they're just lying to cover up? From the attitude of the sheriff ( and much of law enforcement ), I'm guessing there really was a clear view of the women's toilet...

  31. Re:I always wondered by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Personally- I like some of the sci-fi methods better if we're going to get into unusual punishments:

    1. Coventry- Set aside land for criminals who refuse to acknowledge the government. Dump them in there and let them starve or survive based on their own skills.
    2. Reeducation- brainwashing, an alternative to Coventry. This option, with number 1, was known as "The Two Alternaives" in Heinlein's _Revolt_in_2100_.
    3. Death of Personality- this one comes from Babylon 5, where a sort of chemical amnesia is induced in the criminal. They aren't allowed to know their former life- and their present one is as a slave to the family of their victims, with all wages earned going to restitution.
    4. The Hole- another Heinlein idea, done by aliens in _Have_Space_Suit_Will_Travel_. Basically a smooth sided hole in the ground 30 feet down. First 15 feet is a 40" pipe (you've got to put the prisoner on a diet first). Second 15 feet is a 10x10 room with a fountain in the center and a drain with a pressure switch that shuts off the fountain if the drain gets plugged. Throw your prisoner in, feed him as long as you're interested in keeping him alive, and leave him there. Neat replacement for the Death Penalty.

    --
    SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
  32. Re:Bad example by stephanruby · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "Ever watched 'Cops'? "

    Yeah, ever wondered why some faces of the suspects were blurred out, and not others?

  33. Arpaio is an idiot by hotspotbloc · · Score: 3, Informative
    He's the apex of bad law enforcement. He once bragged about how he spends more [per meal] money feeding his guard dogs than those in custody. His tactics have cost Maricopa County millions in lost lawsuits due to his inhumane treatment.

    Check out "Top Ten Reasons NOT to vote for Joe".

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  34. Link? by wo1verin3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay as dumb as this sounds, I can't find the jail cam this article talks about, it references 'crime.com' but that doesn't seem to exist either. I did find this Tennessee jailcam however.

    1. Re:Link? by angrykeyboarder · · Score: 2, Informative

      The camera's were thankfully taken down pending the outcome of the court decision. And it now appers they will stay down.

      --
      Scott

      ©20014 angrykeyboarder & Elmer Fudd. All Wights Wesewved
  35. More on Joe Arpaio by fv · · Score: 4, Informative
    Here is an interview with Sheriff Joe Arpaio, where he brags about his treatment of prisoners. I have no comments, as I feel the raw text speaks for itself:

    Q: In addition to the Web cam, what are some other things that are unique about your jail?

    A: When I took office, I decided to put tents up, so we have almost 1,500 [inmates housed] in tents in the desert. I've gone down from three meals a day to two meals a day -- I call it brunch. And we have the cheapest meals, probably, in the country: 20 cents a meal.

    I'm cracking down on animal cruelty, and when I make an arrest [for that], I have to seize [the animal involved]. I decided to put the dogs in cell blocks [in an unused jail]. I took some heat because that's the only jail we have that's air-conditioned. Also, it costs $1.15 a day to feed the dogs and only 40 cents a day to feed the inmates, but that's the way it goes around here.

    I took away [inmates'] coffee; took away their smoking; took away their movies. The only TV they get is the Weather Channel, and they have to hear me do bedtime stories. I introduce the story, and [then play an] audio book. They can go to the library and get a regular copy, but this helps them learn how to read.

    I put them in pink underwear. I decided to do that six years ago. I put them in striped uniforms several years ago, and I have male and female chain gangs. We do things different here since I became the sheriff. I just got reelected to a third term, and now everybody thinks I'm running for governor. All the polls show me leading for governor, but I haven't decided whether I'm running next year.

    Q: It's been reported that you've had at least 800 lawsuits filed against you.

    A: It doesn't mean nothing. It's how many you lose. Everybody sues me for the cockroaches, the food.

    Q: Have you had to change some of your policies as a result?

    A: I haven't changed anything.

    1. Re:More on Joe Arpaio by killjoe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Since it has been shows that he has not reduced the crime rate he just seems like a sadist who got a ton of human beings to play with. He humiliates them and gets off on his absolute power over these people.

      Probably all for the better though. If he did not have prisoners to torment god knows what kind of a sadistic psycho he would have turned out to be.

      It sure sounds like he is having fun though and the people of mericopa seem to be having fun vicariously too.

      --
      evil is as evil does
    2. Re:More on Joe Arpaio by T.Hobbes · · Score: 3, Insightful
      Before I begin, I am genuinly suprised you didn't come to the same conclusion yourself. The man's own testimony is devoid of empathy, and his actions speak for themselves. Nonetheless, here's a rundown of why the person in question is a sadist.

      A sadist is generally someone who derives pleasure by causing suffering to others. The person in question causes suffering to others by forcing them to [i] go hungry, [ii] live in 100F+ heat, [iii] humiliating them, [iv] depriving them of entertainment. Keep in mind, these are just the things he admits to in an interview.

      In the interview snippit provided, he finds the suffering amusing (his crack about 2 meals a day being a 'brunch'), and is incapable of understanding why others object to him literally treating dogs better than people.

      These methods, irregardless of the morals, have done nothing to decrease the crime rate in his jurisdiction.

      We are left with someone who finds the suffering he causes to a great number of people under his control amusing; suffering that he causes for no reason other than his own, internal, motivations. He is a sadist.

      If you still don't understand, please describe what you consider to be sadism.

  36. Emotional wounds are much harder to heal by n3bulous · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Humiliation makes others feel better, but the target tends to feel pissed off, c.f. Columbine shootings. If you assume from the start they can't be rehab'd, you might as well kill them, quickly. Putting them in jail doesn't solve anything.

    Prison should not provide anything remotely beneficial beyond educational, occupational, or psychological support. There should be light at the end of the tunnel for those who want to travel that route and the rest can rot in a 4x6 cell.

    --
    "The area of penetration will no doubt be sensitive." ~ Spock
  37. Oop. by rsklnkv · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Musta hit the 'any key' earlier when I posted as AC. Sorry. I'm gonna repost and face the wrath of moderation, considering how strongly I feel about this :
    My new reality TV show.
    'CellBoss 2004'. Not only will we be able to vote over the internet to give rapists and child abusers more time, but we can vote naughty/ugly/unpopular cons straight into segregation! Imagine the possibilities regarding aliances!

    Joking aside, as someone who has spent significant time locked up, I find the idea of a webcam monitoring convicts quite disgusting. The simple fact of the matter is (IMHO) that this will do nothing but undermine what little integrity these guys have. Whether or not it might make things 'safer' is silly to me, considering the faulty foundation the Prison Industrial Complex is based on. This alongside of the fact that people in these holding cells are NOT necessarily guilty. The more we trivialize things like prison -- this indirectly relates to the COPS television show (ever seen a white collar criminal arrested?) -- the more people will ignore that America has the highest recorded rate of incarceration in the world and that 80% of those in prison are in for non-violent crimes.

    --
    _____ "If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." -- Orwell
  38. 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.

  39. Deterrence by blooba · · Score: 5, Insightful
    The concept of deterrence is just pure B.S. Deterrence simply does not work. It never has, and it never will. Why? Because most felons commit their crimes without first stopping to consider the consequences. The ability to consider the consequences requires an informed, sane and sober mind, and few felons possess all three qualities at the time during which they commit their crimes.

    Idiots like Sherriff Arpaio know that deterrence does not work. They do it because they want to mete out further punishment, beyond the convict's actual sentence. They feel, quite incorrectly, that they have the right and/or duty to make prisons and jails living hells for the inmates.

    We need to do something to stop this. Most people are indifferent because they have no family members or loved ones behind bars. But take it from me: it can happen to you; it can happen to anyone. When you least expect it, someone you know will screw up and get thrown in prison. You won't feel so indifferent then.

  40. humiliated until proven guilty by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 2, Insightful

    In Puritan New England, public stocks filled on the judgement of the local cult leader prevented crime through intimidation, at the cost of Justice. But that's OK with AZ Sheriff Arpaio, and CA Judge Bea:

    "Judge Carlos Bea wrote that using jailhouse Webcams to post images over the Internet did not violate the constitutional rights of detainees."

    These "detainees" are merely arrested, not found guilty of any crime. The public defamation, now global across the Internet, is an obvious destruction of the rights of the accused. That's consistent with the new class of subhuman "detainees" everywhere, no longer protected by laws administered by fascist judges like Bea, and executed by fascist cops like Arpaio.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  41. innocent by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Until convicted, like when arrested, booked and held, people are innocent of the crime of which they are accused. Any treatment of them other than obtaining their presence in the justice system, which could prove their guilt, is unacceptable, and threatens us all.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:innocent by cove209 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Agreed, Innocent is not the same as being found Not Guilty in a court.

    2. Re:innocent by drsmithy · · Score: 2, Interesting
      What country do *you* live in? Do you actually need "innocent until proven guilty" explained to you?

      Well, it appears you do.

      Being presumed innocent doesn't mean the crime wasn't committed and that the person who committed it isn't dangerous.

      Don't you know that JUSTICE is like SCIENCE, and guilt exists only when proven, just like facts exist only when proven, independent of the events themselves?

      Er, no. Facts are facts regardless of whether or not they are discovered. If someone commits a crime and doesn't get convincted of it, it doesn't mean they didn't commit the crime (it just means they got away with it).

      Perhaps you'd like to explain how people didn't go floating off into space thousands of years ago, given you think gravity didn't exist until Newton discovered it ?

    3. Re:innocent by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 3, Informative

      innocent ... Until convicted, like when arrested, booked and held, people are innocent of the crime of which they are accused.

      Actually, they are to be TREATED as innocent until proven guilty.

      It isn't that they ARE innocent. It is that the government is NOT AUTHORIZED to apply PENALTIES unless and until their guilt has been PROVEN.

      There is the PERPETRATOR, the person who committed the crime.

      There is the SUBJECT of an investigation, somebody the cops think MIGHT be the perpetrator.

      There is the SUSPECT, someone the cops think is sufficiently LIKELY to be the perpetrator that it's a good idea to hang onto him until a case can be presented and tried.

      There is the CONVICT, someone whose guilt has been proven and is now subject to punishment.

      The process of convicting someone consists of converting him from a SUSPECT to a CONVICT, by proving within the appropriate legal standards (beyond reasonable doubt) that there really was a PERPETRATOR of a real crime, and he is it.

      Any treatment of them other than obtaining their presence in the justice system, which could prove their guilt, is unacceptable, and threatens us all.

      Dead on!

      People being booked are SUSPECTS (or maybe even SUBJECTS or material witnesses). They are NOT proven guilty and thus are NOT subject to punishment. The jailing is JUST to insure they can be brought to trial. Nothing more than the minimum inconvenience necessary for the smooth functioning of the system is appropriate.

      --
      Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    4. Re:innocent by Andrew+Cady · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Innocent until proven guilty" applies in court, not to law enforcement. It has to do with the burden of proof, not the treatment of the accused. The accused are -treated- as guilty until acquitted, as standard procedure -- and this is considered legal and constitutional. The accused are placed in jails with the convicted and are often sentenced to "time served", meaning the punishment for the crime was exacted before the verdict was even determined -- and this is considered legal and constitutional.

  42. Men getting raped.. by taxevader · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...is seen as funny by society at large. Why is this? Its because a) they are criminals b) they are men If there was any place where women knowingly got raped there would be an outcry, investigation etc etc. But as it is, it is an accepted, and even condoned by society. After all, these are criminals, they should pay their debt. Rape is rape, no matter who it happens to.

    --
    -Copyright law #69:Whenever Mickey Mouse is about to enter the public domain,copyrights get extended by 25 years.
  43. The Amnesty International view of things by HuguesT · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hello,

    Amnesty International takes a somewhat dim view of this Sheriff's methods, and note that there was at least one suspicious death in custody among other things.

  44. Re:Public not exposed now....ya think!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Public not exposed?! Like hell they are not exposed. They are exposed like the recent case in Florida when a con that spent the last 15 years in some slam induced three others with weak minds to beat six innocent people to death because they would'nt let him and his druggy friends squat in a house they did not own, use electricity they did not pay for, and make life hell for all around them. It was originally thought it was all about a fight over a damn 'x-box' (gee, maybe ole Bill Gate$$$ ought to be investigated for distributing violence inducing electronic devices and prostituted for terririzm and sent to gitmo with the other Americans), then it turned out to be about a man who should have never been out of prison in the first place. Damn x-box was probably stolen to boot. Story is all over the web. We certainly ARE exposed to the situations we create in our prison system. Almost ALL of those AIDS and HepC and syphillis and gonorrhea infested professional horses asses WILL hit the bricks eventually. They will be far more dangerous when they get OUT than when they went IN. They know how to work the system now. They know how to feign contrition and religion to gain temporary advantage with weak minded people who substitute their faith for good judgement and their defective 'moral code' for wisdom. This incident resulted in the firing of three probation officers evidently involved in the fatefull decision to let that particular asshole to his the bricks. No matter, he would have gotten out sometime anyway. They all will. Then YOU WILL BE EXPOSED....SOME OF YOU.....BUT WHO? When a physically weak prisoner gets AIDS just because he does'nt want to or is unable to fight off his prison rapist, the incident does not end there. When the cost of his treatment gets high enough, the prison system will find a way to 'commute his sentence', or 'give him a compassionate release', or whatever. The bottom line is the bottom line in that business, and when the costs go over budget for those self righteous slimeballs that are probably more evil than the prisoners they jailed and administer, then those prisoners will be unleashed on society for the time they have left. These show up at public hospitals and contaminate bathrooms, waiting rooms, the air in emergency rooms, everything they touch, etc. These become germ bombs for the time they have left and leave a trail of sorrow and disease in their wake. We have no national health care in this country. If a terrorist wanted to do us in, I could find no other more effected nor more fearsom vector of death than one of these abandoned ones. Having no stake in society, their society has no stake in them. It was said that Jack the Ripper, infected by a prostiture with syphillis in an age when it was not curable, sought to kill as many other prostitutes as he could find...out of 'revenge'. How much more terrible a revenge if terrorists that hate us plant the biological instruments of our destruction on so hatefull and fertile a ground as those prisoners and others that we as a society cast off as not having value. Take a drive in your city. Go downtown. Go just outside downtown. If in Washington D.C., go northeast from the Capitol center and up Rhode Island Avenue...for about 30 miles. Go past the blocks of empty looking brownstones and the empty eyes of slackjawed and listless pedestrians and hungry prostitutes and garulous beggars. Drive by the thousands of abandoned cars in the sidestreets that no law wants to touch for fear of overloading every dump in the surrounding states. Do not get out of your car! For the empty houses are not, and a gruesome fate awaits the foolhardy there.
    We are exposed every day to the products of our correctional system; we just do not realize it.
    Until the shoplifter who got AIDS in prison goes home on early release becaues of 'overcrowding'. He does not know he acquired AIDS because the correctionsl system thought it too expensive to do periodic checks...and they quietly figured that if they DID find new cases, the

  45. The American Bastille by qwasty · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Prison is about taking away some freedoms of a person convicted of a crime.

    All it takes for someone to lose their freedom in the "Land of the Free" is being laid off at precisely the same time that a parking ticket comes due - Pay the government before you feed your family, or else there will be no family.

    Anyone remember why the citizens of the United States were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms by the revolutionaries that founded our country? The first revolution was started over taxes on tea...will the next revolution be more like the one started at the Bastille?

    With large portions of our population imprisoned either wrongly or for silly reasons (like parking tickets), we have an unhappy powder-keg on our hands, and the population continues to ignorantly re-elect animals like this Arizona Sheriff. Criminals they may be, but do you really want them to be angry, humiliated, and desperate criminals?

    Most people don't care, they just want "justice". Someone once arrogantly said "Let them eat cake", and that person ended up in two pieces at the hands of criminals with a burning desire for blood. What will happen to this Sheriff if a lot of angry people catch him alone? Will his voters save him? I doubt it. They'll probably just watch it happen on TV. Would we have had Adolf Hitler if the Allies had been more empathetic with post WWI Germany? Maybe...then again, if Germany hadn't been so angry and humiliated, they might have just continued to make the world's best children's toys, just like before. Instead, they killed millions.

    What can 1 out of 75 American men do? What can one 1 of 12 black American men do? What can 50 million ex-cons do? Do you really want to make that many people desperate and angry? Do you really want to publically humilate them? Do you really want to keep them unemployed and homeless? Do you really want the ruthless Sheriff of Nottingham doling out "punishment" to the mob that may kill you one day?

    The French Aristocracy had an army of Swiss mercenaries armed with state-of-the-art muskets. The prisoners killed them all with sticks and shovels. Can a haggard bunch of desperate criminals wreak havoc on the smooth operation of the USA? A dozen or so foreigners managed to cripple the US economy on September 11th, 2001. What can 50 million of our own home-made suicidal killers do? These are valid questions...ones that are probably going to be answered in the most unfortunate way possible. Maybe our new criminal leaders will be wiser than our democratically elected ones.

  46. why do Americans fall for such crap? by DABANSHEE · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It seems the US is about the worst place for knee-jerk publicity seeking tough on crime laws & law 'n order auctions every election campaign.

    In regards knee jerkism, look at the way many state & local authorities banned GHB within days of sensationalist reports of body builders abusing this vetinary anasthetic (to aid testosterone production from deep sleep) & gays getting off on thershold dose recreational use. The end result was the new illegal status attracted publicity way out of proportion to the recreational reality of the drug itself & pharmacuetical supplies were replaced by underground chemist supplies, which of course leads to dangerous quantity/quality irregularities, which is the very thing that makes GHB dangerous.

    So the chief effect of politicians taking a opportunity to knee-jerk over the American public's anger over people daring to get off on things they shouldn't get off on, are law 'n order bills which have made the drug much more attractive to use & inherently much many more dangerous to use too. The end result being a logrithmic increase in overdoses from virtually none before hand (relative to the US population)

    Now in regards the law 'n oder auctions every elections, the end result has been the US having both incarceration & policing rates that are logrithmically higher than anywhere else in the world (there's that big L word again).

    This has led to a significant proportion of a significant American minority being totally disenfranchised & huge costs to the American tax-payers that get sucked in by all this law 'n order fear mongering. To the point that many US states now spend more on jails than education (which definitly doesn't bode well for the future), the maning, building & servicing of jails has become the biggest growth industry in the US & if US incarceration levels continue to grow at the same rate they have over the last 15 years, then by 2037 every American will be either employed by the 'jail industry' or incarcerated themselves.

    This has been devastating to America's underclass - just look at those snitch snowballs in Tulia, Texas & Union, Alabama caused by knee-jerk & law 'n order election year 'auction' bills for mandatory minimums & forfeiture legislation. In both cases we had cops arresting people based on the uncorroberated testimony of a paid snitch & then threatened with mandatory minimums if they didn't snitch on any of their mates that were poor but had property (via such things as inheritances, redundency payouts, divorce settlements or people that had done well in the past but are now down on their luck). Meaning they were good forfeiture material as they were worth persecuting but didn't have the incomes to stand up for themselves in the justice system.

    This leads to a snowballing effect as people are threatened with the mandatory minimum to plead out on lesser chargse (meaning they still get convicted & all their property forfeited) on the condition they snitch on any aquaintence, relative or mate that the cops want them to snitch on. Meaning a huge snowballing tragedy of justice in which the evidence is rarely tested in court & when it is tested, it's tested in some hick court where the judge & jury automatically take the cops side, with the legal aid lawyer is hung-over & nodding off in court all day (leading to situations where jurors refuse to admit their mistake & are still convinced that certain defendents are guilty, even though they won appeals due to ironclad alibies, simply because their adament that 'cops are good & don't lie').

    Or look at the many Americans that feel the need to keeped a loaded firearm within axcess of the bed to protect the family from home intruders. Nevermind the fact that if one isn't a drug dealer or a Asian business man/woman with a reputation of keeping large quantities of cash at home, the chances of one's family falling victim to a home invasion if one's a member of the suburban middle class, is probabl

  47. Re:Why Jail Cams are needed by randall_burns · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The real question is what kind of situation would be most likely to allow criminals to turn their lives around. The penal system used to involve rather extreme deterrents. The Quakers as I understand it, came up with the idea of leaving an offender alone with a Bible-and their only human contact a minister. This practice of isolation was abandoned because a lot of the guys "went crazy". I tend to personally feel that allowing prisoners to mix may in some cases be a bad idea-as is allowing exposure to network TV. Computers are cheap enough, we _could_ conceive of allowing the worse prisoners only contact via internet chat lines with carefully screened volunteers.

  48. Re:things have changed by JohnnyBolla · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Sure, but people being booked into county jail aren't convicted of a crime yet, in most cases.

    --
    Carpe Deez