Posted on 03/24/2002 9:29:51 PM PST by mlockwood
For a longer version of this article, see www.intellectualconservative.com/article1005.html When asked their opinion of Sheriff Joe Arpaio, most critics dutifully repeat the clichéd mantra - he is a publicity hound, and he is violating inmates’ rights by treating them brutally. Yet when asked to expound, most people cannot explain in legal terms how inmates’ rights are being violated. The truth is that only a very few inmates in Arpaio’s jails have been seriously harmed while fighting law enforcement who were trying to restrain them. In fact, these numbers are comparable to numbers in other county jails around the country. Furthermore, under Arpaio’s leadership, insurance premiums have not risen, indicating that inmate lawsuits have not increased. Unfortunately, there are people with different philosophical beliefs than Arpaio who would rather give coddle prisoners and give them Hustler magazine and cable television, rather than take the necessary steps to discourage them from returning. Because Arpaio’s opponents have not been able to defeat Arpaio in the polls or find any wrongdoing, they resort to blatant distortions of the truth and falsely accuse Arpaio of lying. Their favorite tactic is to exploit incidents where inmates who resist confinement get hurt, portraying them as innocent victims oppressed by the law. The most frequently touted example of oppression in Arpaio’s jail is the death of Scott Norberg, who died while resisting police officers. Norberg was arrested for chasing and trying to kill two young girls in Mesa. High on methamphetamine, he attacked the police officers who were trying to restrain him, resulting in his death. Norberg’s parents, who had disowned him years ago, filed a lawsuit against the Sheriff’s Office. Arpaio defended his officers’ actions and wanted to go to trial, but the insurance company insisted on settling. The Justice Department and the FBI conducted an extensive investigation and came up with nothing. Yet this case is typical of those cited constantly by Arpaio’s critics as evidence of abuse by the Sheriff’s Office. In response to accusations that his deputies were mistreating inmates, Arpaio installed webcams in the jail so the public could see for themselves. Detractors criticized his webcams as invasions of the right to privacy of pretrial detainees. Yet courts have consistently held that pretrial detainees have a lesser degree of privacy than regular citizens, and have limited rights, similar to convicted criminals. Funny how these same critics are silent regarding TV police shows that frequently show the faces of people being arrested, and pictures of suspects in the newspapers. Accusations that Arpaio is a publicity hound are misplaced. Arpaio generates publicity because he implements innovative programs that save taxpayers money and deter criminal behavior. If he was a passive sheriff who simply coddled inmates and gave them their cable television and pornography, so there weren’t any complaints, he wouldn’t make news. And why should the inmates be entitled to free cable, when there are honest citizens who cannot afford cable? The media’s accusations that he seeks out publicity are ironic, considering it is the media who is always calling Arpaio, not the other way around. Arpaio’s critics ignore or downplay the good he has done. His drug prevention and treatment program has been a success; a recidivism study found that only eight to ten percent of the 2000 men and women who graduated from it have returned, vastly better than the nation’s 60-70% recidivism rate. He started the only high school in the nation for inmates. He has saved taxpayers millions. His volunteer posse of 3200 is the biggest in the nation and saves taxpayers the cost of paying deputies, costing nothing except for the training. Inmate meals cost 22 cents each, the cheapest in the nation. His tents cost taxpayers $100,000, a fraction of the $70 million necessary to build another jail. When inmates smuggled out 50,000 pairs of underwear, he began providing them with pink underwear to prevent future theft. Whatever happened to outrage over crime? It is being replaced with political correctness guised under the important sounding and widely misused mantra of “rights.” But the plain fact is, clever word plays don’t help the politically correct when their life is threatened by one of society’s degenerates: they call the police to defend their rights, not the ACLU to defend their attacker’s rights.
mlockwood@email.com
Send email to Michael Lockwood -
That's my vote.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
